Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—

Swansea and District Transport Bill [Lords].
Cornwall Electric Power Bill [Lords].
Bedwellty Urban District Council Bill [Lords].
Bognor Regis Urban District Council Bill [Lords].
Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Traction Bill [Lords].
Kingston upon Hull Corporation Bill [Lords].

Bills to be read a Second time.

London Midland and Scottish Railway Bill,—

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

STANDING ORDERS.

Resolutions reported from the Select Committee:

1. "That, in the case of the London and North Eastern Railway (General Powers) Bill, Petition for additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to insert their additional Provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit."
2. "That, in the case of the Southern Railway Bill, Petition for additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties

be permitted to insert their additional Provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit."

Resolutions agreed to.

ROAD ACCIDENTS INVOLVING PERSONAL INJURY.

Address for,
Return showing the number of accidents resulting in death or personal injury in which vehicles and horses were concerned And known by the police to have occurred in streets, roads, or public places together with the number of persons killed or injured by such accidents in Great Britain during the year ended the 31st day of December, 1935 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 61. of Session 1934–35)."—[Mr. Lloyd.]

Oral Answers to Questions — CINEMATOGRAPH FILM "ONE FAMILY."

Mr. DAY: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what has been the financial result of the bookings obtained from cinema theatres for the film entitled "One Family," the production of which cost the Empire Marketing Fund the sum of £15,740; and will he give particulars?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): The film interests of the Empire Marketing Board passed to the Postmaster-General on 1st October, 1933, on the dissolution of the board. I understand that the gross receipts to date in respect of the exhibition of the film referred to by the hon. Member amount to £2,865. These receipts cover 24 bookings of theatres and 21 non-theatre bookings in this country, and the rights of exhibition in Canada.

Mr. DAY: Does that mean that the Empire Marketing Fund has lost £13,000 on this production?

Mr. MacDONALD: The Empire Marketing Fund has not received back any of the moneys which it expended originally.

Mr. DAY: Has this film no other bookings with any other theatres from which the Empire Marketing Fund can get back some of the money that has been spent?

Mr. MacDONALD: As far as the Empire Marketing Fund is concerned, that, of course, came to an end some years ago.

Sir PATRICK HANNON: Was not the educational value of this particular film of much more advantage to the country than the actual amount spent upon it?

Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: Will the right hon. Gentleman let the Minister of Health know of this, so that he can put it on the hoardings for the next election?

Oral Answers to Questions — NEWFOUNDLAND (POOR RELIEF).

Mr. McGOVERN: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs the amount of benefit or relief paid to a man, woman, and child respectively, in Newfoundland?

Mr. M. MacDONALD: Relief in Newfoundland is given in kind and not in money, and is intended to supplement the natural resources of fish, game, vegetables, poultry and fuel that are available to the people in most parts of the Island. Those in need of assistance are given orders on local storekeepers for foodstuffs and other commodities. In the outports the cost per head, which is the same for a man, woman and child over five years, is approximately $2 a month apart from the free distribution of vegetables and fuel in districts where this is necessary. In St. John's City, where the residents have not the same natural resources, the cost per head ranges from $6.40 a month in the case of a family of three to an average cost of $4 a month in the case of members of larger families. These scales represent substantial increases since the Commission of Government took office.

Mr. MAXTON: Was there not a money payment made before the Commission of Government took office, for unemployed men, and that now the Commissioners have reduced unemployment benefit to a payment in kind, I think, of 8s. a month.

Mr. Mac DONALD: I understand that the method of payment has not been changed since the Commission took over office, and that the value of the relief given in kind shows a substantial increase upon what was given before the Commission came into being.

Mr. McGOVERN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a statement was made in this House that they were actually paid money, previous to the rioting which took place against the scales, and does he not think that to change to payment in kind is asking for further trouble of a very serious nature in Newfoundland?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise out of the answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

CANNED BEEF (IMPORT).

Mr. AMMON: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the shortage of corned beef, that such shortage is likely to continue for some time, and that, as a consequence, the price has increased; and will he, in the circumstances, consider the revision of the quota?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): The voluntary arrangement for the limitation of imports of foreign canned beef admits of the importation of an aggregate quantity somewhat in excess of the 1933 figure and I see no present reason for revising it. If, however, the hon. Member has any information pointing to a shortage of supplies, I shall be glad to consider it.

Mr. AMMON: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the public authorities are experiencing a shortage, and that since I put down the question the price has gone up by 5s. a cwt., and that the cause is attributed both to the drought in Australia and to the quota?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am well aware that there has been some rise in the wholesale price, and if the hon. Gentleman will let me have any specific cases, I shall be very glad to inquire into
them.

Mr. EDE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War as to how we shall be able to conduct a war during the next 10 years if there is a shortage of bully beef?

STEEL WORK (SHIPS).

Mr. DENVILLE: asked the President of the Board of Trade how much forged steel and cast steel work in connection with new ships built with the help of


moneys provided in the Government's shipping subsidy have been placed with foreign firms during the last 12 months?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I regret that this information is not available.

ARGENTINA.

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in order that British subjects may receive in sterling a return on their various investments in Argentina, he will include in the terms of renewal of the Roca agreement a provision for exchange clearing based upon the annual British purchases from Argentina exceeding the purchases by Argentina of United Kingdom products by over £20,000,000?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The point to which my hon. Friend refers will certainly be borne in mind in any negotiations as to the revision of the agreement at present in force. Under that agreement the full amount of sterling exchange arising from the sale of Argentine products in the United Kingdom, after deduction of a reasonable sum towards the service of the Argentine public external debt in third countries, is made available for current remittances from Argentina to the United Kingdom.

Mr. EVERARD: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether any discussions are now taking place with the Argentine Government with a view to bringing into operation at as early a date as possible the long-term policy of His Majesty's Government for our livestock industry;
(2) whether, in view of the fact that notice to terminate the trade agreement with Argentina must be given before 6th May next, notice will be given to alter or terminate the agreement; and what Amendments he proposes to safeguard the interests of the livestock industry in this country?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I hope to meet the Argentine representatives to resume these discussions shortly. On the general question, I fear I can at present add nothing to the answers I have previously given.

Mr. EVERARD: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is very considerable apprehension in the livestock in-

dustry because it is getting very near to May, and the Government do not seem to be giving very much of a lead in this matter?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am well aware that there are many interests concerned in the negotiation of this new agreement.

Mr. KIRKPATRICK: Are not many of these questions relating to Argentina untimely—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—and not well informed, and is it not more likely to do us harm if we have these questions put before us?

FOREIGN COTTON GOODS (DUTY).

Mr. ROLAND ROBINSON: asked the President of tin Board of Trade whether, in view of the possibility of the operation of the Cotton Spinning Industry Bill resulting in increased prices for home-produced cotton goods, he will support an increase in the import duty on foreign cotton goods entering Great Britain?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot accept my hon. Friend's suggestion that the operation of the Cotton Spinning Industry Bill is likely to result in increased prices for home-produced cotton goods. In any event, the question of an increase in the import duty on foreign cotton goods is a, matter for consideration, in the first instance, by the Import Duties Advisory Committee.

Mr. ROBINSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to watch the situation carefully, and take action if necessary?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, Sir, we shall certainly see what happens.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: Is it not the purpose of the Bill to increase the price of cotton yarn, and will it not fail if it does not do that?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, I am afraid that I cannot accept that as a definition of the main purpose of the Bill.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the price of cotton yarn has already increased in anticipation of the Bill coming into operation?

STEEL-WORKS (JARROW).

Miss WILKINSON: asked the President of the Board of whether he


is now in a position to make any statement regarding the proposed steel-works at Jarrow-on-Tyne; and whether his Department is taking any steps to facilitate the opening of the works there?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am unable to add anything to the reply I gave to the hon. Member on 17th February.

Miss WILKINSON: Is there any chance of the steel-works being put upon the growing list of subsidies?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not know how far the hon. Lady would wish to go in the growing list of subsidies, but I would point out to her that we are doing what we can to encourage an enterprise in which, I know, she is deeply interested.

IMPORT DUTIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

Mr. MANDER: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation to amend the Import Duties Act, 1932, so as to make clear the circumstances under which Members of this House can personally approach the Import Duties Advisory Committee on matters connected with applications for tariffs?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): It may be perhaps for the general convenience if I state what is the existing practice in this matter. I am informed by the Import Duties Advisory Committee that, while they would not feel it proper to consider representations made by a Member of Parliament in his capacity as a Member, they would not refuse to hear an application from a manufacturer, trader, or official of a trade association, in regard to matters relating to the trade in which he was concerned, on the ground that he was also a Member of the legislature. The attitude taken by the Committee on this subject has the Government's entire approval, and I see no necessity for introducing new legislation.

Mr. MAXTON: Would an Opposition Member who represents the workers have the same right of access as a representative of employers?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If he had an official position, certainly.

Mr. MAXTON: Do I understand, then, that in order to get access to the Advisory Committee a man must either be a trade union official or in a particular line of business?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: He must be interested in the particular industry about which he wishes to make application.

Mr. MAXTON: I am interested in carpets from the worker's end; it is a big industry in my division. Can I approach the Committee about carpets?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If the hon. Member is an official of an organisation representing workers in the carpet industry, the answer is yes, but if he is not, the answer is no.

Sir P. HARRIS: How about a Member of Parliament if he is representing consumers?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: He is in the same position as that taken up by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton).

Mr. LEACH: Does not this practice of the Advisory Committee make it almost impossible for anyone to approach it except those who have axes to grind?

NEW POTATOES (IMPORT DUTY).

Mr. LEACH: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury why new potatoes are excluded from the recommendation to abolish the duty of £1 and £2 per ton contained in Command Paper 5135; and has he noted the threat of the Import Duties Advisory Committee on page 3 to reimpose the duty if prices fall too far?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I presume that the Committee did not consider that any action on their part was called for in relation to new potatoes. I have noted that the Committee propose to review the question of duties on main-crop potatoes when the present abnormal situation with regard to supplies has ceased to operate; but I would not describe their statement as a threat.

Mr. LEACH: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer not intimate to the Advisory Committee that the process of raising the cost of food has gone far enough?

FOOD COUNCIL.

Colonel GOODMAN: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the membership of the Food Council; by whom are the members selected; on what number of occasions has the council met since January, 1935; and what actions have been taken on their recommendations during that period?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, circulate a list of the members of the Food Council in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I am glad to say that, following on Sir Geoffrey Corbett's resignation last year to take up duty in Egypt, Mr. Geoffrey Peto has accepted an invitation to become Chairman of the Food Council, while Mr. F. W. Mackinney will continue to act as Vice-Chairman. Members are appointed by the Prime Minister on the recommendation of the President of the Board of Trade. Since the beginning of 1935, there have been four full meetings of the Council and eight meetings of subcommittees. Another meeting of the Council will be held this week. In this period they have made one report, of an interim character, in connection with which further discussions are proceeding.
Following is the list of members of the Food Council:

Mr. Geoffrey K. Peto, C.B.E. (Chairman).
Mr. F. W. Mackinney, C.B.E. (Vice-Chairman).
Mr. Henry Alexander.
Mr. F. W. Birchenough, J.P.
Sir Charles H. Bird, C.B.E., J.P.
Mr. Austin Chadwick.
Mr. A. E. Cutforth, C.B.E.
Mrs. Beatrice M. Drapper, J.P.
Sir William Dudley, O.B.E., J.P.
Professor Alexander Gray.
Sir John Lorne MacLeod, G.B.E.
The Hon. Mrs. Anthony Methuen.
Miss J. B. Montgomery.
Mr. D. Cameron Thompson.
Mr. Arthur Towle, C.B.E.
Mrs. A. Wilson.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

TERRITORIAL ARMY OFFICERS (OUTFIT).

Captain MACNAMARA: asked the Secretary of State for War whether in view of the fact that Territorial officers in actual practice have to provide them-

selves with the same outfit as regular officers, he will increase the initial outfit allowance of Territorial officers so that it is in future the same as for regular officers?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Duff Cooper): Territorial Army officers are not required to provide themselves with the same scale of outfit as officers of the Regular Army, and it is because of this that the respective allowances differ. I see no reason, therefore, to increase the outfit allowance of Territorial Army officers.

Captain MACNAMARA: Is my right hon. Friend aware, that to say that Territorial officers need not have a certain kind of uniform, is an order which it is almost impossible to obey in the Territorial Army in view of the fact that they frequently get orders to wear the uniforms which they are not supposed to have?

Mr. COOPER: I should be glad to consider any special case which the hon. and gallant Member may send to me. Obviously, Territorial officers do not require as much uniform as officers who are wearing their uniform all the year round.

ANTI-AIRCRAFT CAMPS.

Captain MACNAMARA: asked the Secretary of State for War whether existing facilities for training and firing practice at the anti-aircraft camp, Watchet, are sufficient to meet the requirements of the increased number of anti-aircraft brigades approved and contemplated?

Mr. COOPER: No, Sir. The existing practice camp at Watchet reached the limit of its capacity last year, and as it is incapable of expansion, it was necessary in 1935 to make temporary arrangements for certain units to practice in the Isle of Wight. Since then the whole question has been carefully considered, and I am satisfied that, to provide for the efficient training of the additional units in process of being raised under the Government's programme for expanding this important branch of our defences, a second permanent camp must be formed this year, and a third in 1937. A large number of districts have been examined, but so far only one has been found which meets the full requirements of the military and air


force authorities concerned, and where the establishment of a practice camp would be likely to cause a minimum of interference with the activities of the local civilian population. This district is at Weyhourne in Norfolk, and immediate steps are being taken to acquire a site there so that training can begin this summer. Meanwhile, reconnaissance for a third site is still in progress in the North of England for anti-aircraft units to be formed in that area.

TERRITORIAL ARMY (RECRUITING).

Brigadier - General CLIFTON BROWN: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider as an incentive to recruiting, an addition of 5s. a week to the old age pensions of every Territorial soldier who had a certificate of efficiency and had completed 12 years' service with the colours?

Mr. COOPER: I am grateful for my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion, but I am inclined to doubt the efficacy of so remote a benefit as an incentive to recruiting.

Brigadier-General BROWN: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that the man who has given his time to make himself efficient to defend his fellow men is worthy of a little more pension than the man who has not done so?

Mr. ELLIS SMITH: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that justice is meted out to those who have already served in the armed forces before taking on any other commitments?

Mr. THORNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any reason for the shortage in recruiting for the Territorial Army and the Regular Army?

ANTI-GAS RESPIRATOR.

Mr. SHINWELL: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the standard anti-gas protector for the Army is still the Mark I. V. mobilisation canister, and, if so, whether there are sufficient of these in issue or in stock to supply all the effectives in case of need; and whether he is satisfied that this type provides an effective protection against any of the newer European and Japanese gases that are likely to be encountered in the event of another war?

Mr. COOPER: The anti-gas respirator with which the Army is equipped consists of a facepiece and a container. The present pattern of facepiece is known as Mark IV, but I cannot trace that this designation has ever been applied either to the training container used in peace time or to the mobilisation container for which it is exchanged in war. The hon. Member may, however, rest assured that constant progress is made with the pattern of mobilisation container, and the present one is considered to provide adequate protection against the gases likely to be encountered. Stocks are held to cover requirements as laid down by the Army Council.

Mr. SHINWELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the device referred to in the question is employed by the French Government and has been found very imperfect and that the German authorities are scornful of its use, and will he give an assurance that sufficient progress will be made to assure the House and the Forces that the device employed is an adequate protection against the new gases that will be employed in war?

Mr. COOPER: I can assure the hon. Member that everything that can be done will be and is being done to keep our defences in this respect as up-to-date as possible, to keep pace with any new gases that may be invented. I do not think that I can give any assurance beyond that.

Mr. LANSBURY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the nations have now taken it for granted that in the unhappy event of another war the same sort of fighting, but on a larger and more destructive scale, as that which is taking place in Abyssinia by bombing and gas attacks, will be taken part in by our own Government and other Governments?

Mr. COOPER: I do not think that the nation need take so fearful an outlook for granted, but the authorities are obliged to make preparations for defence against every possible contingency.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is it not a fact that our own Government are preparing gases for attack, and that the nation is being provided with these kinds of masks and being drilled for protection which the Government know is no protection?

Mr. COOPER: The question on the Order Paper has only to do with defence, and that is the question with which I have been dealing. I have said that we are taking every possible measure to protect our troops against every form of attack.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Seeing that the populace are being provided with gas masks in the event of air raids, may I ask what provision is being made for the cattle which supply us with milk and for the hens which supply us with eggs? Are they to have gas masks? It is no use our being supplied with gas masks if our cattle are to be gassed.

SURPLUS WAR MATERIAL.

Mr. DAY: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will give particulars of any surplus armaments or war material that has been sold to foreign countries for the three years ended to the last convenient date?

Mr. COOPER: As the answer contains a number of figures I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this surplus stock is obsolete as far as our fighting Service is concerned?

Mr. COOPER: Anything that is surplus is not wanted.

Mr. DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman give in his reply the names of the countries referred to?

Following is the answer:

During the three years ending 31st December last the following surplus war material was sold by the Government to foreign countries:


Three-pounder gun
1


Twelve-pounder cartridge cases (empty)
4,960


Lewis guns
71


Magazines, Lewis gun
150


Machine guns
20


Bags for machine guns spare parts
250


Depth charges
30


Smoke-float igniters
24


Rifles, 1914 pattern
2,978


Revolvers
70


.303 Small Arms ammunition (rounds)
2,000,000

Steel helmets
21,000


Web equipment (sets)
24


Respirators
300


Anti-flash gloves (pairs)
150


Anti-flash masks
150

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

RIVER ALMOND (POLLUTION).

Mr. MATHERS: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the serious condition of the River Almond owing to recent pollution; and whether he will take action to prevent further pollution of this stream?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): Recent pollution of the River Almond has been caused by defects in the arrangements for the purification of waste waters from coal-washing plant at a colliery in the area. These defects have now been remedied and pollution from this source has ceased.

Mr. MATHERS: Is it not possible for the hon. and gallant Member to do something not merely to remedy the cases of pollution but to prevent them by causing the recommendations of the committee in regard to appointing an inspector to be put into operation, and could he bring his influence to bear upon his own county authority in this regard?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The hon. Member knows that my right hon. Friend is in touch with the local authorities on this matter, and full regard is had to the powers under the Rivers Pollution (Prevention) Act.

Mr. GALLACHER: Is anything being done to stop the pollution that is entering into the stream of government policy?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I am not aware of any.

DUKE STREET PRISON, GLASGOW.

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the declining need for Duke Street Prison in Glasgow, he will consider the desirability of pulling it down and replacing it with gardens or other amenities?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Dumbarton


Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) to a somewhat similar question on the 17th instant, to which there is nothing to add, except that inquiries are being actively pursued for a site for a prison to replace that at Duke Street, Glasgow.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Before the hon. and gallant Member makes any decision on this matter, will he take into consideration the present system of dealing with untried prisoners at Barlinnie who have been transferred from Duke Street, and will he see that untried prisoners have reasonable access to lawyers and other means of advice?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I will take into consideration the suggestion of the hon. Member.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: The Minister has given practically the same reply that was given to me four years ago, when I put a question to the right hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) when he was Secretary of State for Scotland. They have made no progress.

Mr. SPEAKER: In that case both answers appear to have been the right ones.

POLICE (DISCHARGES, GLASGOW).

Mr. McGOVERN: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of police officers in Glasgow who have been discharged from the service since January, 1919, up to the latest date, and the names and reasons for discharge in each case?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement giving the desired information, except the names of the officers concerned. Publication of names would prejudice the efforts of men who are trying to make a fresh start in life, and would cause pain to the relatives of those who are now dead.

Following is the statement:

Statement showing numbers of police officers dismissed from the Glasgow Police Force, or required to resign from that force as an alternative to dismissal, between 1st January, 1919, and 28th March, 1936, and the causes which led to their

being dismissed or being required to resign as an alternative to dismissal:


Causes.
Numbers dismissed.
Numbers required to resign as an alternative to dismissal.


Absent without leave
6
11


Late for duty
—
1


Neglect of duty
4
29


Drunkenness
17
178


Discreditable conduct
24
82


Corrupt practices
1
—


Totals
52
301

Number of constables on probation discharged from the Glasgow Police Force between 1st January, 1919, and 28th March, 1936, as unlikely to become efficient constables, 40.

WIDOWS' PENSIONS.

Mr. STEPHEN: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will consider the introduction of legislation with the object of granting pensions to widows who would be eligible for pensions under the Act of 1929 were it not for the fact that they have gone to spend a few years with members of their family in different parts of the British Empire, but have since returned to this country and are permanently resident here?

Lieut. - Colonel COLVILLE: When applying the residential qualification laid down in Section 13 of the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1929, careful and sympathetic consideration is given to the circumstances which led to absence from Great Britain in each individual case. My right hon. Friend does not consider that any amendment of that Section is called for.

Mr. STEPHEN: Is the Minister not aware that in spite of that Section, there are many cases where a person has been deprived of pension owing to having spent a short time in some other part of the Empire? Is he not going to help those people?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: My information is that the Section has been interpreted liberally enough, but if the hon. Member has any case that he wishes to bring to my notice, I will consider it.

Mr. STEPHEN: Does that mean that the hon. and gallant Member will reconsider the decision he came to in the cases I have mentioned?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: No, Sir. I have yet to see the hon. Member's evidence which would dispute the statement that I have made.

Mr. STEPHEN: I will send it.

EMPLOYMENT.

Mr. McGOVERN: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of persons that have found employment under the schemes inaugurated by Sir Arthur Rose?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The number of individuals who have actually been given employment for varying periods under the Commissioner's schemes is not available, but the hon. Member will find on page 31 of the Commissioner's report for the period 1st July, 1935–31st December, 1935, estimates of the amount of direct employment expressed in men-years for various types of schemes.

Mr. MAXTON: Cannot we get something more definite and precise on this matter instead of the rather vague estimates of the report to which the Under-Secretary has referred?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: If the hon. Member will see the report, he will appreciate the difficulty there is in estimating the number of individuals directly and indirectly employed. The number of schemes is set out, and he will get the nearest possible estimates of the number of men-years.

Mr. STEPHEN: Is it not the case that this is practically all we have got from the Commissioner in Scotland in the way of additional employment?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: No, Sir. That is not the case at all.

Mr. McGOVERN: Will the Under-Secretary not advise the Government to reconsider this matter, and instead give local authorities a sufficient amount of money to enable them to employ men on local schemes?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I am not at all satisfied that that is the proper view.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

CATCH LIFTING (BOYS).

Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: asked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been called to the statement made at an inquest at Cudworth, on Saturday, 21st March, by the inspector of mines that boys of 15 years of age were too young for the job of catch lifting; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Captain Crookshank): I have received a full report on this aceident, and I agree with the opinion expressed by the inspector that young and inexperienced boys should not be given duties in connection with the working of cages. In this instance the matter was taken up immediately with the manager of the pit, and a promise was given by him that in future only older boys would be employed on such work. The attention of His Majesty's inspectors will be drawn to this accident, and they will he instructed to take the matter up in any other cases which they find.

Mr. T. SMITH: Will the hon. and gallant Member consider circularising colliery managers on this matter?

Captain CROOKSHANK: I will consider it, but our first business is to circularise the inspectors.

RENTS AND ROYALTIES.

Mr. DAGGAR: asked the Secretary for Mines the sums paid by British coal mines in rents, royalties, and way-leaves in 1935?

Captain CROOKSHANK: During the year 1935, the estimated amount paid by colliery owners in Great Britain in royalties and wayleaves, including the rental value of freehold minerals where worked by the proprietors, was £4,990,000.

EMPLOYMENT.

Mr. DAGGAR: asked the Secretary for Mines the number of persons employed below ground and above ground, respectively, in the mines of Great Britain during the years 1934 and 1935?

Captain CROOKSHANK: The average numbers of persons employed at mines under the Coal Mines Act, 1911,


in Great Britain during the year 1934 were 624,437 below ground and 173,262 above ground. The corresponding figures for the year 1935 were 609,531 and 171,186 respectively.

CONSUMPTION.

Mr. DAGGAR: asked the Secretary for Mines the quantity of coal consumed' in this country in 1935, and the amount so consumed in cwts. per head of the population in 1930 to 1935, inclusive?

Captain CROOKSHANK: The quantity of coal available for consumption in Great Britain in the year 1935 was 164,450,000 tons. The consumption of coal per head of population in each of the years 1930–35 was 75, 69, 67, 66, 71 and 72 cwts. respectively.

EXPORTS (BRISTOL CHANNEL PORTS).

Mr. LEVY (for Sir REGINALD CLARRY): asked the Secretary for Mines whether he will specify the foreign countries and destinations of the 5,937,000 tons of coal exported from Bristol Channel ports during the year 1935 which are unrestricted as to price and delivery by the purchaser; and whether this quantity could be materially increased if lower prices, additional facilities, or other special inducements were quoted by the exporter?

Captain CROOKSHANK: As the answer to the first part of the question involves a table covering no less than 55 separate destinations, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The second part of the question involves a variety of considerations too complicated to be suitable for discussion within the limits of the reply to a question. I would point out, however, that a large proportion of this tonnage was shipped to markets where the United Kingdom was the principal or sole supplier.

Following is the table:


Coal Exports in 1935 from Bristol Channel Ports to Countries other than those with which Trade Agreements are in existence or where quantitative restriction of the importation and/or consumption of foreign coal is in, force.


Country to which consigned.
Quantity from Bristol Channel Ports.



Tons.


Channel Islands
160,562


Gibraltar
193,337


Malta and Gozo
56,243

Country to which consigned.
Quantity from Bristol Channel Ports.



Tons.


Cyprus
912


Palestine (including Trans-Jordan)
111,144


Sierra Leone
46,969


Gold Coast (including Togo-land, under British Mandate)
2,002


Nigeria (including Cameroons, under British Mandate)
802


Aden and Dependencies
18,752


British India
6,102


Straits Settlements and Dependencies (including Labuan)
16,376


Ceylon and Dependencies
23,324


Hong Kong
4,000


Australia
10,007


Canada
1,151,243


Newfoundland and coast of Labrador
53,403


Bermuda
4,709


Jamaica and Dependencies
12,479


Trinidad and Tobago
195


Other British West India Isles
2,957


British Guiana
519


Java
173


Algeria
376,843


Tunis
121,068


French West and Equatorial Africa
83,047


French Somaliland
13,488


Madagascar and Dependencies
3,512


Reunion (Bourbon)
495


Syria
1,138


French West India Isles
8,642


Portugal
939,246


Azores
7,633


Madeira
41,056


Portuguese West Africa (excluding Angola)
26,337


Angola
10,126


Canary Islands
166,005


Spanish Ports in North Africa
100,996


Italian Aegean Isles
3,843


Libya
16,021


Italian East Africa
5,496


Yugo-Slavia
2,149


Greece
97,520


Roumania
10,841


Egypt
1,379,848


Morocco
41,691


Iraq
295


China (exclusive of Hong Kong, Macoa, Manchuria and leased territories)
496


United States of America
113,099


Cuba
6,463


St. Domingo
507


Chile
785


Brazil
474,630


Bolivia
7


Paraguay
58


Whale Fisheries, Foreign
7,330


Total of above destinations
5,936,921

NOOK AND GREAT WYRLEY COLLIERY (STOPPAGE).

Mr. ADAMSON: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has any information regarding the stoppage of work at the Nook and Great Wyrley Colliery, in South Staffordshire, in which 200 mine workers are involved; whether he has ascertained if the failure by the company to pay the recent increase of wages is responsible; and whether his Department has taken any action in the matter?

Captain CROOKSHANK: I am informed that owing to the refusal of the owner to pay the increase in the district percentage recently awarded under the provisions of the Cannock Chase District wage agreement, the workmen employed at this colliery ceased work on 21st March. The colliery is a non-associated one, and I understand that the owner claims that he is not bound by the terms of the district agreement. However, I am now informed that work is to be resumed as from to-morrow night.

Mr. ADAMSON: Can the Secretary for Mines say on what terms work is being resumed?

Captain CROOKSHANK: No, Sir.

Mr. ADAMSON: Will he make inquiries?

Captain CROOKSHANK: I imagine that they are satisfactory to the persons concerned, otherwise work would not be resumed.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

TRAFFIC SIGNAL, NOTTING HILL GATE.

Mr. DUNCAN: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that there is a traffic signal at the corner of Linden Gardens and Notting Hill Gate which shows red to the East and green to the West at the same time, and that as a consequence it is dangerous to pedestrians; and will he have it altered?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Captain Austin Hudson): This arrangement is not unusual at junctions where turning traffic is heavy: but a special observation shall be made to see whether it is possible to provide an "all red" period and so afford greater security to pedestrians.

Oral Answers to Questions — TEXTILE OPERATIVES (DUST).

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that negotiations for the establishment of a voluntary fund to provide compensation for the victims of dust in textile card-rooms have proved abortive; and whether he will now take steps to achieve the object in view by some other means?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): Representations have been received on this matter from the Amalgamated Association of Card Blowing and Ring Room Operatives, who have asked for a deputation to be received. My right hon. Friend has asked me to receive the deputation on his behalf, and I will arrange to do so at an early date. The position will be further considered in the light of the information furnished by the deputation.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE STATUTORY COMMITTEE (REPORT).

Mr. DINGLE FOOT: asked the Minister of Labour when the report of the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee upon the remuneration limit for the insurance of non-manual workers will be published?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Ernest Brown): Copies of this report will be available in the Vote Office at six o'clock to-day. The Committee received evidence from a large number of associations and other interested parties, and after a very full investigation, the Committee have recommended that the present limiting rate of £250 per annum should be raised. The majority of the Committee (including the Chairman) suggest that the new limit should be £400 per annum.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS (REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT).

Mr. LEACH: asked the hon. and gallant Member for Ipswich as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, whether he will place upon the dicing and tea tables of the House supplies of the same margarine as is used by the Defence Forces so that Members may judge its quality?

Sir JOHN GANZONI: No, Sir, I regret that the Kitchen Committee cannot undertake to obtain samples of margarine for this purpose.

Mr. LEACH: May I take it that this decision on the part of the hon. Member is due to his desire to protect the health of hon. Members?

Sir J. GANZONI: It is because the Kitchen Committee are not desirous of importing margarine into the House for any purpose.

Mr. SHINWELL: Are we to understand that what is good enough for members of his Majesty's forces is not good enough for Members of this House?

Sir J. GANZONI: We have no official knowledge that margarine is supplied to His Majesty's forces.

Mr. McGOVERN: Will the hon. Member give us an assurance that the margarine supplied is up to the same standard as that supplied by the Labour Government?

Oral Answers to Questions — CONSUMERS COMMITTEES.

Colonel GOODMAN: asked the Minister of Agriculture what number of consumers' committees are in being in Great Britain; in what districts; by whom are they appointed; and what meetings of such committees have been held since January, 1935?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Ramsbotham): In pursuance of Section 9 of the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, consumers' committees have been appointed for Great Britain and England and Scotland. The Great Britain Committee was appointed jointly by my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Agriculture. The English Committee was appointed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and the Scottish Committee by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. Since 1st January, 1935, the Great Britain Committee has held four meetings, and the English Committee three meetings, in addition to meetings of sub-committees. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland informs me that five meetings have been held by the Scottish Committee during the same period.

Oral Answers to Questions — PERMANENT COURT OF INTER NATIONAL JUSTICE.

Mr. MANDER: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in the view of his advisers, the ratification of the Optional Clause of the Permanent Court of International Justice by Germany, approved by Herr Hitler in March, 1933, is still binding?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Viscount Cranborne): The acceptance by the German Government of the Optional Clause was renewed for a period of five years by a declaration dated 9th February, 1933, which was ratified on 5th July, 1933. My right hon. Friend sees no reason for supposing that this renewal of the German acceptance of the Optional Clause is not still binding.

Mr. MANDER: Does not that mean that the case with regard to the occupation of the Rhineland can be taken compulsorily to the Court whether Germany agrees or not?

Viscount CRANBORNE: I should like to have notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — STAFF CONVERSATIONS.

Mr. MANDER: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether staff conversations between Great Britain, France and Belgium have commenced; and whether he will press them forward as rapidly as possible, with a view to showing our determination to make the Treaty of Locarno effective?

Viscount CRANBORNE: The answer to the first part of the question is No, Sir. The hon. Member may, however, rest assured that His Majesty's Government will take any steps that seem to them necessary and desirable in order to direct them towards the objective to which he refers.

Mr. MANDER: Is it not a fact that these conversations are the only kind of language which the Nazis understand?

Mr. SANDYS: Can the Under-Secretary assure us that these staff conversations will not be undertaken until the German Government have definitely rejected the proposals?

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: Will the Noble Lord take note of the fact that some hon. Members of the House are not in agreement with the application of this principle at all?

Oral Answers to Questions — DANZIG.

Mr. E. SMITH: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the position of the trade unions in Danzig?

Viscount CRANBORNE: I presume that the hon. Member has in mind the question of the dissolution of the Danzig General Workers' Union. This matter has not been referred to the Council of the League, but my right hon. Friend's information is that the League High Commissioner in Danzig is watching the situation carefully, and he may be relied upon to bring the matter to the notice of the League Council, should circumstances warrant this being done.

Mr. E. SMITH: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in the view of his advisers, the recruiting for the German army in the free city of Danzig is in keeping with the League of Nations guarantee of the Danzig constitution?

Viscount CRANBORNE: The question is not one which, so far as my right hon. Friend is aware, has been the subject of a report by the League High Commissioner at Danzig, and it would therefore not be proper for my right hon. Friend to express an opinion on this point.

Mr. SMITH: In view of the commitments undertaken by the League with regard to the Danzig population and the fact that unemployed youths of 18 years of age are being forced into the German army against the wishes of their parents, will the Noble Lord make investigations into the matter and issue a report to this House?

Viscount CRANBORNE: I think we may trust the League High Commissioner to deal with this subject in the way in which it is desirable.

Oral Answers to Questions — REFUGEES.

Mr. RILEY: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government intend to ratify

the convention relating to the international status of refugees, especially in view of the probability that such ratification would be an incentive to other countries to follow the example, and in view of the fact that ratification would throw no additional financial burden on the Government or local authorities?

Viscount CRANBORNE: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave yesterday to a question asked on this subject by the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher).

Mr. RILEY: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many countries have ratified the convention relating to the international status of refugees and how many have implemented it?

Viscount CRANBORNE: This Convention has been ratified with reservations by Bulgaria and Norway. Cechoslovakia, Denmark and Italy have acceded to the Convention with reservations. My right hon. Friend has no information as to the measures which these countries are taking to implement the Convention.

Mr. RILEY: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give information regarding the inter-Governmental conference summoned to meet in Geneva on 2nd July next by the Secretary-General of the League of Nations for the elaboration of a method of legal and political protection for the refugees coming from Germany; what are the terms of reference; and whether His Majesty's Government intend to be represented?

Viscount CRANBORNE: The Secretary-General of the League of Nations has recently informed His Majesty's Government of the convocation of this conference for 2nd July at. Geneva. The terms of reference approved by the Council of the League of Nations for the conference are to arrange a system of legal protection for refugees coming from Germany. The answer to the last part of the question is "Yes, Sir."

Oral Answers to Questions — SUBMARINES.

Lieut.-Commander FLETCHER: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, following the signature


of the new Naval Treaty, it is proposed to negotiate between interested Powers an agreement concerning rules of war for submarines?

Viscount CRANBORNE: Discussions on this subject are at present proceeding between the signatories of the London Naval Treaty of 1930. It is hoped that, as a result, His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom will be authorised by those signatories to invite all Powers not signatories of that Treaty to accept the rules relating to the action of submarines set out in Part IV of the Treaty as established rules of international law.

Mr. THORNE: May I ask whether the abolition of submarines has been discussed at the Naval Conference?

Viscount CRANBORNE: I would like to have notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

VOLUNTARY NURSING ASSOCIATIONS.

Miss CAZALET: asked the Minister of Health the number of county councils and borough councils that have applied to the Minister of Health for his consent, under Section 67 of the Poor Law Act, 1930, to subscribe towards the support and maintenance of voluntary associations for providing nurses within their area; and how many have not done so?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): 52 out of 62 county councils, and 48 out of 83 county borough councils, have applied to my right hon. Friend or to his predecessors under the provision mentioned in the question for consent to subscriptions to nursing associations.

MILK DESIGNATIONS.

Sir GIFFORD FOX: asked the Minister of Health whether he has now reached any decision with regard to the suggested designations for milk; and whether in any case he proposes to postpone the coming into force of any order on the subject?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: My right hon. Friend regrets that he is not yet able to announce his decision on this subject. He is postponing the operation of the new order until 1st June.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC ASSISTANCE (DURHAM).

Mr. W. JOSEPH STEWART: asked the Minister of Health what steps he is taking to make public assistance in Durham County a national charge either by subsidy or the weighting of the block grant on a basis of the percentage of unemployed to insured workers in this area, so that rates may be lowered, thus removing one of the main prejudices against this county as a manufacturing area?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: As my right hon. Friend stated in reply to a question on lath February, the proportion of rate-and grant-borne expenditure on public assistance and other services of the local authorities in the county which is met out of Exchequer grants is almost two-thirds. The block grant through which the main part of this assistance is given is calculated on a formula which includes an unemployment factor, the working of which will be included in the investigation into the basis of distribution of the block grant now taking place in consultation with the associations of local authorities.

Mr. STEWART: Is it the intention of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health to deal specially with Durham County as a depressed area so as to make the poor rate there comparable with the rest of the country?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: If the hon. Gentleman will read the answer, he will see that the whole question of the readjustment of the need formula is being considered, and in so far as the need of Durham is in excess of the need of any other area, that will be accounted for in the formula.

Mr. STEWART: Has the hon. Gentleman had a report from the special investigator in Durham County who suggested that Durham was heavily weighted through large numbers of unemployed and suggested a subsidy, and may we have a guarantee from the Department concerned that that county will have special consideration as a weighted area?

Mr. LAWSON: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that since the formula has been working the poor rate has actually increased, and is this any consolation to the county?

Oral Answers to Questions — RATING RETURNS.

Mr. THORNE: asked the Minister of Health whether all local authorities are called upon to send his Department a half-yearly or annual return showing whether there has been an increase or decrease in their rates?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Yes, Sir. All rating authorities furnish to my Department particulars of the rates levied by them each half-year or year, according to the period in respect of which the rates are levied.

Mr. THORNE: Will the Parliamentary Secretary take note of the heavy increase in rates which is taking place in nearly every one of the local authorities in some parts of the country at the present time?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: indicated assent.

Colonel CLIFTON BROWN: Will the Government look into the reasons for the increase in these rates?

Oral Answers to Questions — BROADCASTING (COMMITTEE'S REPORT).

Mr. HALL-CAINE: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the charter of the British Broadcasting Corporation expires at the end of this year and the desirability of enabling the corporation to make arrangements for future developments at the earliest possible date, he will arrange to issue, if possible before Easter, a White Paper indicating to what extent the Government intend to adopt these recommendations and to provide a definite and early date for a Debate on the matter?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on 19th March in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle). It is not intended to announce the Government's proposals by issuing a White Paper.

Mr. DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an opportunity of discussing this in the near future?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would welcome a discussion on the Post Office Vote, which will be a suitable occasion, and could be taken on an allotted Supply day.

Oral Answers to Questions — GRANARIES.

Mr. DONNER: asked the Prime Minister whether an opportunity will be given to discuss the question of grain storage in relation to National Defence?

Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: asked the Prime Minister whether during the period of his chairmanship of the Committee of Imperial Defence, steps have been taken to increase the facilities for grain storage in this country?

Mr. CARTLAND: asked the Prime Minister whether in view of the fact that the position of our food supplies and the facilities for the storage of commodities in this country are constantly under review by His Majesty's Ministers, he will indicate whether any conclusions have been arrived at; and whether it is proposed to take any action in the immediate future?

The PRIME MINISTER: The position of storage facilities is kept under constant review and I understand that in recent years there has been an increase of grain storage at ports in this country. The provision of storage facilities is not a matter in regard to which the Government have hitherto had reason to intervene. An opportunity for the discussion of this subject will no doubt occur in the normal course of business, and I fear in the present state of public business, the Government cannot provide a special opportunity for a debate.

Mr. DONNER: Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that the amount of grain storage in this country will be immediately increased, in view of the fact that it would not last for more than 10 days, at a time when the peace of Europe is very uncertain?

Sir FRANK SANDERSON: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he will reconsider the scheme I put to him last May?

Mr. SANDYS: Before the Prime Minister replies, might I ask whether he is aware that the President of the Board of Trade informed the House on 26th March that granaries cannot be an effective security against the risks of war unless they are full, and that on the same occasion the right hon. Gentleman informed the House that our granaries


were only full to the extent of one-seventh of their capacity? How does he propose to remedy that position?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think the House would welcome a debate on that subject, and I have said an opportunity will arise in the normal course of business.

Mr. DONNER: Could we have an assurance of immediate action?

Mr. MAXTON: Will the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence examine it?

Oral Answers to Questions — SERVICE DEPARTMENTS (SUPPLIES).

Lieut.-Commander FLETCHER: asked the Prime Minister whether any single authority exists with powers to ensure full and effective use of the country's industrial capacity and manpower available for production of the requirements of the three Service Departments and to co-ordinate the supply demands of these Departments, so that proper priority is observed and competition and overlapping between them avoided?

The PRIME MINISTER: The position is outlined in Section IV. of Command Paper 5107. It is one of the functions of the Committee of Imperial Defence to make plans to enable the necessary powers to be taken in this regard in time of emergency. It is also a function of this committee to co-ordinate the supply demands of the several Departments for such purposes as are indicated in the last part of the question.

Lieut.-Commander FLETCHER: May I ask the Prime Minister whether it would not be more satisfactory to proceed forthwith to the appointment of a Minister of Supply, observing that many experts consider the appointment of such a Minister to be a matter of even more urgent importance than the appointment of a Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence?

The PRIME MINISTER: If the Government felt that such a Minister was necessary, I have no doubt they would appoint one. I am not yet convinced of it, although the time may come when it may be necessary.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS (PROCEDURE).

Mr. HANNAH: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider bringing before this House a Motion to make a new Standing Order to fix a limit for the length of speeches in the House?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave yesterday in reply to questions addressed to me by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Kennedy).

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTH ATLANTIC SHIPPING ACT, 1934.

Mr. DAY: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government have agreed to provide financial assistance towards the construction of any further liners to be built by the Cunard White Star Company; and can he give particulars?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No proposals have yet been made to the Government for constructing additional tonnage under the provisions of the North Atlantic Shipping Act, 1934.

Mr. SHINWELL: Are we to understand from that answer that there is no truth in the newspaper statement regarding a location for the building of a new Cunarder?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know what is the statement to which the hon. Member refers.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

ESTATE DUTY.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that in the assessment of an estate for Death Duties the value of stocks and shares and other personalty is assessed at their value on the last day of the testator's life, no allowance being made for any depreciation in the estate which may be caused by the testator's death; while on the other hand life insurances taken out to provide for death duties are added to the estate of the testator at their full value after his death and not, as should be the case, comparable with other personalty at their surrender value immediately prior to death; and whether steps will be taken


to value life insurances for death duties at their surrender value immediately prior to death, as in the case of other personalty?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. Friend's question is based on a misapprehension of the law. Under subsection (5) of section 7 of the Finance Act, 1894, as amended by subsection (2) of section 60 of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, the principal value of property for Estate Duty purposes is the value at the time of death and not the value at any prior moment of time. It is, moreover, provided in the latter mentioned subsection that proved depreciation in the value by reason of the death is to be taken into account.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is it not well known in recent cases where the testator was prominent in the management of a business, that the value of the shares fell as much as 2s. 6d. on his death and that the Estate Duty was levied on the higher figure of the Stock Exchange value immediately before the death?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have informed my hon. Friend what the law is, but if he has any case which he thinks is not in accordance with the law, I shall be glad to look into it.

Mr. THORNE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that this is the best form of raising revenue?

MALE SERVANT LICENCE DUTY.

Major MILLS: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total number of male servant licences taken out in Great Britain in each of the last three years; whether the information in his possession would confirm the impression that over a period of years the tendency is for fewer of these male servants to be employed; and, if that is so, whether he will promote the employment of male servants by abolishing the Male Servant Licence Duty either with or without compensation to the county councils for loss of revenue?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The total numbers of male servant licences taken out in Great Britain in each of the last three years are as follow:


Year (ended 31st March)
No.


1933
174,130


1934
172,900


1935
174,248



During the past 10 years the number of male servant licences taken out in any one year has fluctuated somewhat, but the number at present is about the same as it was 10 years ago. As regards the last part of this question, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the statement I made on this subject on 11th June, 1934, during the progress of the Finance Bill, when an Amendment to abolish the Male Servant Licence Duty was under consideration in Committee.

Mr. THURTLE: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer bear in mind that there is a good deal to be said for the suggestion in the question from the point of view of sex equality?

MALTING AND DISTILLING BARLEY (IMPORT DUTY).

Sir EDMUND FINDLAY: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the administrative difficulties in imposing a tax on malting and distilling barley?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: An investigation of various methods of levying a Customs duty upon imported malting and distilling barley—which is what I assume the hon. Baronet has in mind—was made in 1923 by a Treasury Committee whose report is to be found in Command Paper 2996. As my hon. Friend will be aware, the question of a duty on malting and distilling barley is raised again by an application which is now under examination by the Import Duties Advisory Committee, and pending the conclusion of this inquiry I do not think it would be desirable for me to make any statement.

NATIONAL DEBT.

Mr. DOBBIE: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer at what figure the National Debt stood on 1st January, 1919; at what figure the National Debt was standing on 1st January, 1936; and what amount has been expended in that period out of the revenues of the country on payment of interest?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Figures of the total National Debt, which are not available except for the last day of each financial year, are given on page 7, column 6, of the latest National Debt Return (Command Paper 4996). Figures of interest will be found on page 8 of the same Return.

SHAMROCK (IMPORT DUTY).

Sir CECIL HANBURY: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that small boxes of shamrock sent by post from Ireland are taxed 6d. by the Post Office and 3d. by the Excise; and whether he can see his way to allow such boxes to come in free of tax on St. Patrick's Day and thus mollify Irish sentiment?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am aware that shamrock imported from the Irish Free State is chargeable with Customs duty and that in the case of importations by post a Post Office fee is also payable. I regret that I cannot accept the suggestion in the latter part of the question.

Mr. LOGAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is very silly to charge shamrock coming into this country?

DOG LICENCE DUTY.

Mr. R. ROBINSON: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in order to meet the financial difficulties of poor persons, he will consider the introduction of a system of quarterly dog licences?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Dog Licence Duty in England and Wales is not an Imperial but a local taxation duty. I doubt whether the hon. Member's proposal would be practicable or desirable, but in any case I could not consider legislation to give effect to it unless it were supported by the various local authorities concerned.

Mr. ROBINSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great hardship which may be caused to a poor person who is called upon to take out a dog licence and to pay a full year's duty in the last quarter of the year?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It may be so, but my hon. Friend will see that that question is not relevant.

Oral Answers to Questions — STEAMSHIP "QUEEN MARY."

Mr. MAGNAY: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the risk of losing millions of public money that was incurred by the grounding and the risky manoeuvring of the steamship "Queen

Mary," on Tuesday, 24th March, in the tortuous channel of the Clyde estuary; and will he make it a condition of grantting assistance for the building of the sister ship that it shall be built on a river where a safer passage is available?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: This is not in my judgment a matter which would require the intervention of His Majesty's Government in the event of a decision to build a sister ship. I have been in communication with the builders and owners of the "Queen Mary" and am informed that no undue risk was involved in bringing the vessel down the Clyde, and that the builders with the co-operation of the Clyde authorities made adequate provision for the safe handling and movement of the ship. I am further informed that all parts of the structure have been examined in dry dock at Southampton and have been found in an entirely satisfactory condition with absolutely no evidence of grounding.

Mr. MAGNAY: Are we to understand that the whole nation and photographs by unattached observers are all wrong, that our heads are as soft as Clyde mud, and that we have been misinformed? If the sister ship is to be a larger boat; would it not obviously be in the Cart if it came down the Clyde?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I was on the bridge while the vessel went right down the Clyde, and that it kept to schedule time until Duncan Cameron, the pilot, handed it over to Sir Edgar Britten, who is now in the Distinguished Strangers' Gallery, and who would tell the House, if he were permitted, that it is the finest ship he ever handled?

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN LOANS.

Mr. DOBBIE: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that large sums of money have been advanced by certain London financial houses since the conclusion of the War in 1918 to foreign Governments, part of which sums have been expended upon rearmament; and whether, in view of the present state of international affairs, he will introduce legislation making it a criminal offence for London financial


houses and bankers to lend money for such purposes?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not aware on what information the statement in the first part of the question is based, and, so far as I am concerned, the answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Can my right hon. Friend give us the assurance that he and the Treasury will use every endeavour to prevent loans being made to foreign Governments which will be expended upon the further increase of their armaments?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My right hon. Friend is aware that there is now an embargo on foreign issues, and that the embargo cannot be raised without special permission from the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Oral Answers to Questions — CANADA AND NEW ZEALAND (BANKING SYSTEMS).

Lieut. - Commander FLETCHER: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he can give any information with regard to the proposals of the Governments of Canada and New Zealand for assuming public control of the national banking systems of their countries; and whether he can place in the Library any official papers giving particulars of such schemes and the reasons that have actuated the Governments concerned?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Marquess of Hartington): I have no information in regard to these proposals other than that which has appeared in the Press. As my right hon. Friend informed the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) on 24th March, he has arranged for inquiries to be made as regards Canada, and he is now taking similar action as regards New Zealand. On receipt of further information, I will communicate with the hon. Member.

Lieut.-Commander FLETCHER: Has this action by the Canadian and New Zealand Governments been followed by any collapse of the public credit, or any heavy withdrawal of bank deposits, or by any flight of capital abroad?

Marquess of HARTINGTON: I have nothing to add to my right hon. Friend's reply.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

EASTER RECESS.

Mr. ATTLEE: Can the Prime Minister now state when the House will rise for the Easter Recess, and also what business it is proposed to take if the Motion on the Order Paper standing in his name (Business of the House) is passed?

The PRIME MINISTER: We hope tonight to get the Report stage and the Third Reading of the Cotton Spinning Industry Bill. We hope that the House may rise on Thursday, 9th April, when the Motion for the Easter Recesss will be taken, the House meeting on that day at Eleven o'Clock. The House will meet again on Tuesday, 21st April.

Mr. BUCHANAN: With reference to the announcement of the Easter Recess, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Minister of Labour promised us the Unemployment Insurance Regulations by the spring, and that if the House does not reassemble until the date mentioned that will be about the end of spring? Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the Minister of Labour on this point to see that his promise is carried out?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think the term "spring" is a little wide. Spring does not begin until 21st March, and I do not think summer begins until 21st June.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Am I to take it that the Prime Minister is really announcing further delay before the introduction of the Regulations?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir, certainly not.

Sir P. HARRIS: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to postpone till after Easter the Financial Resolution on the Air Navigation Bill.

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think we shall get it this side of Easter.

Mr. BATEY: Seeing that the Prime Minister himself stated during the General Election that the Government would deal with the means test, would it not be better to call the House together again earlier than 21st April, in order to deal with this subject?

Mr. SANDYS: Can the Prime Minister tell us whether there will be an opportunity before Easter to discuss the


Argentine trade agreement, which can be denounced on 6th May—a very early date after we reassemble?

The PRIME MINISTER: There is, of course, the possibility of discussing it on the Motion for the Eastern Adjournment.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 254; Noes, 123.

Orders of the Day — COTTON SPINNING INDUSTRY BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(The Advisory Committee.)

"(1) For the purpose of advising the Spindles Board there shall be a committee (hereafter in this Act referred to as the Advisory Committee ') consisting of six persons appointed by the Board of Trade, and of the members of the Advisory Committee—

(a) three shall be persons appointed after consultation between the Board of Trade and the Federation of Master Cotton Spinners' Associations, Limited;
(b) one shall he a person appearing to the Board of Trade to represent the interests of cotton spinners in Great Britain who are neither members of the said federation nor members of any association which is a member of, or affiliated to, that federation;
(c) one shall be a person appointed after consultation between the Board of Trade and the Joint Committee of Cotton Trade Organisations; and
(d) one shall be a person appointed after consultation between the Board of Trade and the United Textile Factory Workers' Association.

(2) It shall be the duty of the Spindles Board to consult the Advisory Committee from time to time with respect to the discharge of the functions of the Board.
(3) If at any time the Advisory Committee resolve that an application ought to be made to the Board of Trade for the termination of the purchasing powers of the Spindles Board, the committee shall cause their resolution to be published in the London Gazette and in the Edinburgh Gazette and to he communicated to such bodies appearing to the Board of Trade to represent the interests of cotton spinners in Great Britain as the Board of Trade may direct.
(4) At any meeting of the Advisory Committee three shall be a quorum, and the committee shall have power to act notwithstanding any vacancy among the members thereof; and if at any such meeting the votes are equally divided on any question, the person acting as chairman of the meeting shall have a second or casting vote.
(5) The Spindles Board may place any of their officers or servants at the disposal of the Advisory Committee, on such terms as the Board think fit, and may, subject to the following provisions of this Act, incur on account of the committee such expenses as the Board may determine." — [Mr. Runciman.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.55 p.m.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): I beg to move, "That the Clause be react a Second time."
While the Bill was passing through Committee, a wide range of subjects was discussed. Upon some of them it is possible for the Government to say that they accept the suggestions that were made, although the form remains to he decided by the Government dreftsmen. One of the most important subjects that we discussed upstairs was the composition of the Advisory Committee, and in that discussion hon. Members opposite, as well as in other parts of the House, where largely concerned. In the Bill originally, the Advisory Committee was a Committee of four. Clause 3 states that the Advisory Committee shall consist.
of four persons appointed by the Board of Trade, being persons who appear to the Board of Trade, after consultation with cotton spinners in Great Britain to represent the interests of such cotton spinners.
It was represented to the Standing Committee that a wider interpretation of representation was in the interests of the industry as a whole. I did not feel justified in accepting the Amendment which was put forward, and which was purely for the nomination of certain interests, but I took the broader view and considered what were the interests of the industry as a whole.
Among the proposals which were discussed and which we have since had under consideration, was an increase in the number of the Advisory Committee from four to six. We propose, in the new Clause which I am moving, to provide that three members of the Advisory Committee shall be persons appointed after consultation between the Board of Trade and the Federation of Master Cotton Spinners' Associations, one shall be a person appearing to the Board of Trade to represent the interests of cotton spinners who are members neither of the federation nor of any association which is a member of or affiliated to the federation. That provides for the case of cotton spinners who, while not members of the federation, have interests to protect. One person shall also be appointed after consultation between the Board of Trade and the Joint Committee of Cotton Trade Organisations. The object of having a nominee from that organisation was to bring as early as possible


into the discussion of these subjects manufacturers and others who are interested in the other stages of the industry.
The Joint Committee of Cotton Trade Organisations has on it representatives not only of employers but of some of the workers' organisations, and it will be open, therefore, under paragraph (c) of the proposed new Clause, to provide for the appointment of a person who will be selected after consultation between the Board of Trade and the Joint Committee. That might provide—I do not know whether it would, because I cannot say what will be the recommendation—for a member of one of the workers' organisations to sit on the Advisory Committee. Finally, one person shall be appointed after consultation between the Board of Trade and the United Textile Factory Workers' Association. This was done specifically with the object of drawing in one of the representatives of the operatives. We did that, not because we have changed our views regarding the interests which were to be protected on the Advisory Committee, but because we wished to foster the general spirit of cooperation and the efforts which are now being made for the recovery of the industry. That object has been stated to the Committee, and I hope that the House will now be prepared to accept that recommendation.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. CLYNES: Very little change has been made in the Bill during the Committee stage, and I hold a view that there are several other Clauses which if they had been altered to the extent that the Clause now under consideration alters the Bill, the Bill would have been far better than it was when it passed Second Reading. I regret that it will not be possible for us to discuss a number of Amendments on the Paper with a view to their being incorporated in the Bill during the Report stage. As to this new Clause I would ask one or two questions. The new Clause is a substantial improvement. I do not regard it as embodying any very generous concession to the particular interests that I have in mind. It is rather the admission of the right of the United Textile Factory Workers' Association to be kept in touch with the work of the Spindle Board whose decision very seriously concerns them. One omission

from the Clause is its failure definitely to describe the capacity and the place of the chairman of this Advisory Committee. Many a committee is worthless for the lack of experts, alert and qualified persons, as either secretaries or chairmen.
There is no secretary referred to in the case of this Advisory Committee. A person is referred to as one who is to preside at meetings, but that is very different from having a chairman proper who would possess the right and initiative in calling together the members of the Advisory Committee and the right to approach the Spindles Board. The Clause does say that the Advisory Committee shall have a person who is to act as chairman of a meeting and that he shall have a second vote or casting vote. But that is not enough, if this body of six persons is to be a live body, with a sense of responsibility and in touch with the Spindles Board. All that the Clause says is:
It shall be the duty of the Spindles Board to consult the Advisory Committee from time to time.
Correspondingly will it be the duty of the Advisory Committee to consult with the Spindles Board, or are we to understand that always it rests with the Board to decide whether there shall be consultation or not? We ought to have some definite reply on those points.

4.4 p.m.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: I wish to thank the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade for this new Clause. I remember that when this question was discussed in Committee the right hon. Gentleman was away, but the Parliamentary Secretary promised that he would consult the right hon. Gentleman and try to meet the views that were then expressed. My own opinion is that this new Clause is a great improvement on the Clause we had before us in Committee, and I take this opportunity of thanking the right hon. Gentleman for having dealt with a difficult point which I mentioned in Committee. I thought the operatives were entitled at least to some representative on this Advisory Committee. The numbers on the committee I do not regard as a matter of importance. If the operatives have a representative there they will be quite as well aware of what is going on with


one representative as they would be with two or three.

4.6 p.m.

Mr. PETHERICK: As one of those on this side of the House who always had very great misgivings about the Bill I would like to thank the President of the Board of Trade very much for putting on the Paper a number of Amendments which go some way to meet the views of those who were in opposition to the Bill on this side of the House. I regard this as a very valuable Amendment and a concession which should please, as it has pleased, hon. Members opposite as well as some of us. In the seventeenth century there was an epigram made up by Whigs for Whigs which ended:
For Whigs allow no force but argument.
Those of us who were opposing the Bill in Committee were not very strong in numbers. The President of the Board of Trade is not only a political descendant of a long line of Whigs but is a lineal descendant who is living up to the ancient traditions which Whigs always hoped were part of their make-up. There are one or two points I wish to raise with regard to the person who is appointed
to represent the interests of cotton spinners in Great Britain who are neither members of the Federation (of Master Cotton Spinners' Associations) nor members of any Association which is a member of, or affiliated to, that Federation.
The Lancashire Cotton Corporation is not a member of the Federation of Master Cotton Spinners' Associations. It is, however, supporting this Bill. I am not sure whether it is a member of an affiliated association. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade when he comes to appoint a representative will see that as far as possible he will get the right man, and that he is a person to represent those interests who have been in opposition to the Bill. The right hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) regretted that there was no provision for a secretary of the Advisory Committee, but he will find that under Sub-section (5) of the new Clause the board can lend or put at the disposal of the Advisory Committee various officers. I think it would be wise to put in a provision for the election of a chairman or that the chairman should be appointed by the President of the Board of Trade. I imagine that that

will be done in any case. Perhaps these points can be dealt with between now and the time when the Bill reaches another place.
Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

4.9 p.m.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I beg to move, in line 3, to leave out "six" and to insert "seven."
I do not want to disturb the praise which has been offered to the President of the Board of Trade for this new Clause, but if it is true, as has been said, that he is the descendant of a long line of Whigs, I hope he is still in the special line of descent and will listen now to a plea which is not altogether outside the usual Whig policy, and that is a plea for consideration of the position of the consumer. We want to extend the number of members of the Advisory Committee in order that we can move a subsequent Amendment which will provide that
one shall be appointed after consultation between the Board of Trade and representative organisations of consumers.
I am sure from the reports I have read that my hon. Friends in Committee made adequate representations as to what is the real character of this Bill. I feel that this process adopted by the Government, of dealing on a corporate basis with industry piecemeal, wants careful watching in the interests of the general community, and that the position of the general consumer should as far as possible be safeguarded. After all, the Bill will set up what is virtually a monopoly, and it is, therefore, of the utmost importance that the general communal aspects should be borne in mind. There was a very grave danger that the Spindles Board would take a short view in their consideration of surplus spindles capacity, and that their actions would tend to raise the cost of production and the selling price. I listened very carefully to the reply of the President of the Board of Trade during Question time to-day to a question on that point. I did not learn from him any reason for believing that the operations of the Spindles Board would not raise the price of the commodity iii the home market. Perhaps in the course of his reply on this Amendment the right hon. Gentleman or the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us on what they base the assump-


tion that the Bill is not likely to increase the ultimate price of the cotton goods supplied to the home market.
It has always been part of the economics taught to me that when you restrict the supply to a market you tend to raise the price. The whole object of this Bill is to restrict output by reducing the number of spindles available for production. The inevitable result of such a policy would be to aggravate still further instead of relieving the present position. What we want is a larger consumption in the home as well as the foreign market of this industry. Large sections of the population are not able, with their present level of income, to buy even the necessaries of life, and any tendency unduly to raise the price of cotton goods is going still further to restrict consumption. Speaking for those who are usually recognised as connected with the organised consumers in the country, we feel that it is necessary, as we cannot go back on the general principle adopted in the Second Reading of the Bill, to take whatever steps we can to safeguard the general position of the consumer.

4.13 p.m.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: On a point of Order. Could we discuss this Amendment in conjunction with that which immediately follows, which says that one member of the Advisory Committee "shall be appointed after consultation between the Board of Trade and representative organisations of consumers"? Is it not the case that the consumer of whom the right hon. Gentleman speaks would not be the consumer under this Bill? The consumer under the Bill would be the consumer of cotton yarn, and he will have a representative on the Advisory Committee under this Clause. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the ultimate consumer of cotton piece goods. It is necessary to make that point quite clear. If we were allowed to discuss the two Amendments together we could ask the right hon. Gentleman to make quite clear what he actually means, and then have a ruling on the question whether the words of the Amendments cover what the right hon. Gentleman means.

Mr. SPEAKER: I understand that the second Amendment in the name of the

right hon. Gentleman is consequential on the first, which he has moved. If I am wrong in that assumption I am subject to correction.

Mr. ALEXANDER: That is the case. I addressed myself only to the first Amendment because I realised that if that Amendment was defeated discussion would not be allowed on the second.

Mr. LEVY: When the right hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) speaks of consumers I assume that he has in mind the consuming public, but in this case the consumers are the weavers of yarn. Therefore, I think the right hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension, for the consumer of the yarn is represented on the Advisory Committee.

Mr. ALEXANDER: You were under no misapprehension at all, Mr. Speaker. The organised consumers, with whom, as the House very well knows, I am connected—

Mr. LEVY: Not in yarn.

Mr. ALEXANDER: It is no use the hon. Member trying to ride off like that. He knows perfectly well that there are 7,500,000 ordinary members of the public organised in the consumers' movement, and they are pressing for this Amendment in a two-fold sense. They are the ultimate users and consumers of the finished product, but, in their organisation as consumers, they also find it necessary to be in the industry, and they are actually weavers, using the product of the spinner in their weaving industry. But that does not really affect the point that we are making, namely, that a body is being set up by Statute which will have complete power over these aspects of the conduct of this section of the cotton industry. The work of the Spindles Board is now to be followed by the work of this Advisory Committee. We cannot hope to get an amendment of the constitution of the Spindles Board by putting a consumer on it, but surely it ought to be possible to get an expression, through the Advisory Committee, of the views of the users of the ultimate product as well as of the product of the spinning section of the industry—because it affects the whole industry—in order that the public should not be exploited.
Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the ordinary general public who buy the


finished product are not affected? If he can, I will give way, but I have yet to learn that the industry at any stage, whether manufacturing, processing, finishing or distribution, does not ultimately affect the price to the last consumer of the goods. We think it essential, therefore, that the consumer in the communal sense should be represented on the Advisory Committee. I am not sure what the right hon. Gentleman's reply will be, but I have heard it said that the Board of Trade will look after this matter. I used to think that that was so, but, with the fiscal revolution that has taken place, I can no longer rely to quite the same extent that I used to rely upon the Board of Trade. That is not because I blame the Board of Trade, but because of the change in legislation. If the President of the Board of Trade is going to proceed to deal piecemeal, industry by industry, with giving a statutory corporate control which is practically a monopoly, we must insist at every stage that the community shall be properly protected.

Mr. SPEAKER: With regard to the question put to me by the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) as to whether these two Amendments can be discussed together, I should say that they certainly can.

4.19 p.m.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: When the right hon. Gentleman speaks on behalf of the cooperative movement, he always does so with force and knowledge, but I am afraid he has not been very intimately connected with the discussions on this Bill upstairs. If he had been, he would have observed that very early in the discussions we found ourselves in the position of trying to forecast, as nearly as one could forecast, what was likely to happen if the Bill became law. One thing that was clear at the outset, and was never, I think, seriously challenged, was that there was no attempt to restrict output. There is, of course, an attempt to regulate the industry, and one of the effects of regulating the industry will be, we hope, that, instead of having a fluctuating market, very often affected by sudden outbursts of industrial energy, or perhaps even of desperation on the part of some individuals, there will be a fairly level supply of orders for a fairly level number of spindles, and, if that is

attained, we shall be in the happy position of having by regulation achieved one of the objects which the Bill has in view. I see no reason why that should not be attained.
When the right hon. Gentleman speaks of the consumer, I know he is thinking of the ultimate consumer, but, before he reaches that stage, I hope he will not overlook the other classes of consumers concerned—the weavers, doublers and so on, right down to the finishers. They are all consumers, and, so far as this Clause can provide, they are going to be represented on the Advisory Committee. The right hon. Gentleman accepts that as a good principle with regard to the consumers who are direct consumers of yarn. As regards the ultimate consumer, I believe the general effect of the policy will be in conformity with what has actually happened during the last four or five years. There has been no serious rise in the cost of commodities, and, as we have pursued our policy, we have been in the happy position of knowing that the cost of living has remained pretty much where it was even so much as four or five years ago.

Mr. ALEXANDER: There has been a rise of four or five points.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: There has been a rise recently, but that was commensurate with other rises in remuneration and so on.
We cannot accept the Amendment. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, it would be of a different nature from the other provisions of the proposed new Clause, in which we are dealing with the industrial consumer. If we were to attempt to deal with the matter as it affects the ultimate consumer, it would lead to confusion. It would not be a very easy matter to ascertain exactly what was the necessity for this change, and I doubt whether anything would be gained by the country as a whole if the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion were carried out. We have made every effort in the Bill and throughout the Committee stage to avoid any change that would be likely to embarrass those engaged in any branch of the industry. The right hon. Gentleman made some reference to what the future might hold. I cannot pretend to prophesy, but I can say that, unless there is to be some regulation such as


is provided for here, it will be impossible for us to build up the reorganisation of other sections of the industry which we have in view.

4.25 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I intervene because the right hon. Gentleman has apparently forgotten the point, to which I think I shall be entitled to refer now, which was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) about the Chairman of the Advisory Committee. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman may have an opportunity of replying later on that point, which we thought was rather an important one. In the meantime I desire to support my right hon. Friend's plea for an increase in the number of members of the Advisory Committee on the lines he suggests. I was present upstairs when we discussed the number of members that should be on the Advisory Committee. Happily we had not then to deal with the President of the Board of Trade himself, but with his deputy, who, as a rules is very much more generous than his chief. Consequently we now have at least a representative of trade union organisations on the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman cannot get away with the idea that the Amendment which my right hon. Friend moved frankly on behalf of the co-operative movement is not justified. In Committee upstairs I listened to the arguments on this issue over and over again, and I represent a seat in Lancashire, I think I know Lancashire fairly well, and it would seem to me to be a very strange world if the price of the finished article is not increased as a consequence of the passing of this Measure. Indeed, while it is not said in so many words, I should imagine that, although the right hon. Gentleman does not believe it will happen, the manufacturers in Lancashire would on the other hand feel very disappointed if it did not happen, because what they have been seeking for a long time is an increase in the price of the finished article. If I had been in the position of my right hon. Friend, I would have quoted the co-operative movement without arty ado, because they are the only organised consumers who conduct their business without making a profit out of their fellows.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: Oh!

Mr. DAVIES: Evidently the hon. Member does not belong to the co-operative movement—

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: That is exactly why I know; I am a member of it.

Mr. DAVIES: Then I am afraid he is not an intelligent member of it. Obviously he has not read the rules of his co-operative society, and in that connection I ought to tell him that he not the only one who has not. There is a point in favour of this principle being embodied in the Bill. The question has been raised in Parliament for years of the tremendous gulf that exists between the price of an article sold wholesale and that of the same article sold retail. We have always been told that the distributive workers are responsible for that gulf. I am not going to argue that with the right hon. Gentleman to-day, because we have had so many arguments that have never reached a conclusion, but we shall register our views on this matter in the Division Lobby. This is the first time that the Government in this country have embarked upon this industrial policy, and, while the manufacturers and others are to be represented on the Advisory Committee, we think that the consumer should be represented there as well. The right hon. Gentleman has given the whole case away by acceding to our request that the trade unions should be represented, for the argument of himself and his deputy up to the very last moment was that this Bill had nothing whatever to do with trade union organisation. If they look up their words they will find how many of them they have eaten in this proposed new Clause. I repeat that I wish the right hon. Gentleman would be good enough to answer the specific question put to him by my right hon. Friend the Member for Platting as to the chairman of the Advisory Committee and his duties. As the right hon. Gentleman will know better than I do, a committee of any kind is of very little use unless the chairman is properly appointed, unless his duties are specified, and unless he has the initiative to lead his committee to do something.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: I am somewhat attracted by the Amendment, though I wish the right hon. Gentleman had been a little more precise, because there might


be some difficulty in interpretation if it is carried in its present form. I am a little perturbed because, as the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) has said, the object of the Amendment is to put a representative of the Co-operative Society on the Committee.

Mr. ALEXANDER: If I had intended that I should have moved it specifically.

Mr. WILLIAMS: When the hon. Member for Westhoughton says the right hon. Gentleman has moved this frankly in the interest of the Co-operative movement—

Mr. DAVIES: What I said was that, if I had been moving the Amendment, that is what it would have contained.

Mr. WILLIAMS: If the hon. Member will consult the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow, he will find that I was correct in my interpretation, because I do not regard the Co-operative movement in the form in which it will come in this Committee as representative in any sense of the consumers. It is not the rank and file of the members who will be represented but people associated with the directorate—in other words a body of shopkeepers. I do not admit that the directors of a Co-operative society enjoy any special kind of sanctity. They are no more virtuous than the directors of any other trade organisation. If we are going to have representatives of consumers, I think I am a better representative of them than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) because I represent far more than he does—some 60 per cent. more. Mine is a most important consuming constituency.
On several occasions in Committee I definitely raised the issue where the ultimate consumer came in. I think there are very grave dangers in a policy of monopoly. I think the change in the constitution of the Advisory Committee is good up to a point, but it is only adding more people of the group who hope to share in the boodle if there is any, because all these people who are being put on are people who hope to make something but of it, and we want some protection for the consuming interest. The President of the Board of Trade believes that this reorganisation will result in more economical production. We axe always told that. We were told

that in regard to the Marketing Board. Only the other day we had the extraordinary spectacle of a man being fined £50 for growing too many potatoes and next day the duty being taken off because there were not enough potatoes. I am distrustful of this new argument, which comes strangely from people who in the past called themselves Liberals. If it had come from some of the old—fashioned Tories, there might have been some case for it, but it is amazing that it should come from Liberals, who preach the doctrine of freedom.
This Bill does not represent freedom but the exact reverse. I think we ought to have someone on this Advisory Committee who will think in the terms of the people who are going to buy cotton goods, because the interest of all those who are on it is in the manufacture, and, if they do not wreck their sales by pushing the price too high, the higher the price the better pleased will be all the members of the Advisory Committee. The additions to the committee do not make it better but worse from that point of view, because you are going to have not only the masters but the men and, when they have their wage disputes, they will say, "We have this semi-monopoly and we can exploit the consumer." I think the right hon. Gentleman opposite has rendered a very considerable service by drawing attention to what I regard as a fundamental issue in the Bill. For the first time in a manufacturing industry we are attempting to set up a semi-statutory monopoly. The worst features of the Bill have vanished, but we ought to have some check of the kind suggested, and I hope the President of the Board of Trade will view the situation and see whether he cannot give some undertaking that before the Bill finally becomes an Act some change will be made to give the consumer the protection that is completely denied in the Bill as it stands.

4.36 p.m.

Mr. RADFORD: I am very surprised to hear my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) agreeing with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander). The bulk of our cotton manufactures are exported, the greater part of them to the East, and if the Government were to accept this Amendment they would have to arrange for


some Asiatic gentleman to come over here and become a. member of the Advisory Committee. The right hon. Gentleman opposite asked how the Bill could operate and not cause an increase in price. The answer is simple. It is not proposed that the output of yarn should be cut down, but it is suggested that it should be concentrated in fewer hands and the saving in overhead expenses will more than cover the 1⅙d. per spindle levy. I am convinced that the fears about raising prices are absolutely groundless. I should think the whole country would welcome some rise in price when it realised that the bulk of the cotton spinning companies are not making but losing money, and neither the interests of owners nor of operatives are served by a continuance of those conditions.

4.37 p.m.

Mr. BARNES: I should be content if we could establish the principle of consumers' representation by this Amendment, leaving to a later date the dispute as to who actually represents the consumers. The President of the Board of Trade said there was no fear of restriction of output, and therefore no fear of a consequential rise in price. He added that the object of the Bill was to get a level production. I fail to see how you can get a level production unless you restrict production at some given point. The whole purpose of the Bill is to control the productive output of this section of industry, and so a consequential rise in prices is inevitable in view of the profit motive which will be running through the Bill. If we do not get some such Amendment as this, the whole of the interests are directly production interests, and I do not see how the Board of Trade can function for the public. If the Board of Trade was independent in its functions under the Bill there would be something to be said for it representing the public interest, but in the composition of the Spindles Board the Board of Trade has surrendered its independent position in so far that the chairman and members of the board are appointed after consultation with persons appearing to the Board of Trade to represent the interests of cotton spinners. So the Board of Trade must consult the interests primarily concerned with the Bill.
When we come to this new Clause, the Board of Trade again is limited to selecting persons from definite organisations and bodies. It appears to be inevitable that the Chairman will come from the three persons appointed after consultation with the Federation of Master Cotton Spinners' Associations, because that body will have three out of the six persons appointed. If the Amendment does not accomplish adequately the point that we wish to gain, I suggest that the President of the Board of Trade should endeavour to meet the public interest involved in the Amendment. It is not desirable that this type of statutory control of industry should be developed. Many people take the view that it would be disastrous and dangerous to our trade in the long run, especially if the sectional interests are predominant in this type of organisation.
Although the danger may be obscured and held in arrest for a short period, in the long run this static type of industrial organisation is bound to lead to a very dangerous position in a country like ours, dependent as it is on such a large overseas trade for its imported raw material and food supplies. Therefore the functions of the Advisory Committee must ostensibly be to represent some kind of test, some kind of advice as far as the operations of the Spindles Board are concerned on the other interests that are affected. I am not at all influenced by the comment that in this case the consumer is the weaver. Nothing of the kind. The weaver in this case is the user and not the consumer of the commodity in the final result. What we are pressing upon the right hon. Gentleman is the very vital principle that, if this type of organisation is going to be created, the public should be assured that there is a large public purpose checking the operations of selfish interests. I ask the right hon. Gentleman again to consider his decision and, if the Amendment is not satisfactory, to submit a more practical one.

4.43 p.m.

Mr. PETHERICK: I find myself in unaccustomed agreement so far as this Bill is concerned with the hon. Member for Rusholme (Mr. Radford) Hon. Members opposite hold up their hands in holy horror at the idea that the Bill may lead to an increase in price. The average trade unionist in the cotton


industry would welcome a rise in price, because you cannot go on for ever stabilising prices in the industry at the present extremely low level without causing ruin to all concerned. I have never liked the Bill because of the principle involved in it, but if it will do something to raise prices, amongst other things, I shall feel that it will, at any rate, have partially justified itself. The right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment cannot have realised its full implications. It means that representatives of the consumers, presumably the ultimate consumers, will be placed on the Advisory Committee. The duties of the Advisory Committee are to advise the Spindles Board as to what spindles should be bought up, and where, and the price that shall be given for them. If a consumer is to be placed on the committee to prevent the price rising, his sole duty apparently will be to obstruct. All he will have to try to do is to see that no spindles are bought and scrapped in case there should be a rise in price. In that event the right hon. Gentleman is right in resisting the Amendment.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: The House ought to address itself in a practical way to the provisions of the Bill. We are not in this case discussing a finished product. I am in favour of the representation of consumers where you are dealing with a finished product, but this is a raw material and the consumer in this case would be the purchaser of the raw material. I do not agree with the President of the Board of Trade, who said in reply to a question that there will be no rise in price. I think there will be a rise in price, but I believe it is computed that on a 36 count of yarn, the incidence of this levy will be.045 per lb. and, in any case, if it went up to 10 per cent. it would make no appreciable difference per yard of the finished product.
Those who are connected with the textile trade find that there is no difficulty as to watching the consumers' interest, in regard to the purchase of yarn. Those who are spinning can be certain that they will never make too large a profit so long as there are good Lancashire and Yorkshire business men concerned in the buying of yarn. I should like to see a committee set up to give

protection against the profits which are made in the retail trace by, among others, the Co-operative societies. That is where the difficulty exists. It is not the manufacturer who is making the profit to-day. The man who is manufacturing the product is the man with a complaint about the profits which are often made in the retail branch. In this case the consumer to whom the Bill relates is represented on the Advisory Committee. It is provided in paragraph (c) of the new Clause that
one shall be a person appointed after consultation between the Board of Trade and the Joint Committee of Cotton Trade Organisations.
That person could be a consumer of cotton yarn. In any case, you have three representatives of the spinners. In this particular instance you have one who would, I presume, be a consumer of cotton yarn. Then the representative of the trade unions would be able to listen to all that was going on and if he thought that anything was being done which tended to increase the price, he, presumably, would express his view on that subject. If I thought this was a practical Amendment I would support it but, as I say, the raw material is a very different matter from the finished product.

Mr. ALEXANDER: The hon. Member appears to be trying to give us a little elementary instruction, but he overlooks the fact that the ordinary consumers of whom I was speaking are actually working for the weaving mills in England and Scotland. We know exactly what the position is in this trade. They also represent the ultimate consumer.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: I know that the Co-operative societies are users of cotton yarn and also of worsted yarn and shoddy. I think I know their interest in the textile trade, but they have always sufficient power, because of the competition within the industry, to get adequate protection. I have been against the principle of the Bill from the beginning, but I must admit that when you have done away with the spindles it is not as if you were leaving the industry without sufficient spindles to provide all the yarn that could be demanded. If you were going to have a scarcity of machinery, there would be something in the right hon. Gentleman's point. As it is, I think it is an impracticable Amendment and would not meet the


case, whereas the President of the Board of Trade in the proposed new Clause has to a large extent met our complaint.

4.51 p.m.

Major PROCTER: It seems to me that the underlying idea of the Amendment is to prevent the abuse of the monopoly position which is being created under the Bill, but the form of words chosen for the Amendment cannot, I think, carry out the underlying idea. No representative of a consumers' organisation would have the opportunity, the ability or the power to do anything on this Advisory Committee to cause either a rise or fall in price or to prevent the abuse of the monopoly which may be created by the setting up, for the first time, of a closed system in the cotton trade. This advisory body will be concerned with what spindles are to be taken out of the market and scrapped or re-sold. If the combines put up the price, how can any consumers' representative on that body do anything to prevent it, except to say, "Let us refrain from buying up any more spindles; let them all run full time"? Even then, this Bill does not control in any way the running of a three-shift system. Therefore, to carry out this proposal would simply he to increase the number of the committee without having any effect whatever.
It has been pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) that the effect of this proposal will be to raise prices. I have opposed the Bill all through, not on the ground that it may increase prices, but on the ground that there may be an uncontrolled increase of prices, which is a different matter. What the cotton trade needs more than anything else is an increase in the price of yarn. I say with all due deference to the right hon. Gentleman opposite that what we see in the cotton trade at present is the carrying out of one of the great Socialistic principles, namely, the running of industry for use and not for profit. The trouble is that because there are no profits in the trade we cannot pay a decent wage to the cotton operatives.
What we want to prevent is uncontrolled price-raising, that is to say, the weavers and spinners all getting together in a sort of Adullam's Cave and saying to each other: "We have the position in our own hands; let us force up prices

to such an extent that we can control the market and nobody else can come into the industry henceforth without paying ransom." What we are doing now is making a closed system, but I believe that if the President of the Board of Trade could keep a watchful eye on these matters and find some way of preventing the abuse of the monopoly, we could dispense with the consumers' representative on this body. I would, however, like the right hon. Gentleman to indicate how, in the absence of a person to look after the consumers' interest, he is going to prevent abuse. Will any power be given to the chairman or to anybody else to consult with him, so as to see that this monopoly is not abused in any way?

4.56 p.m.

Mr. ROWSON: I wish I could believe that the Bill was for the purpose of reorganising the industry, either in a monopolistic or in any other way. The trouble is that when we have passed the Bill we shall leave the industry exactly as it was before, and the old system of laissez faire will continue. In regard to paragraphs (b) and (c) of the new Clause I wish to put two questions. I wish to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can guarantee that the representative mentioned in paragraph (b) is to be one of those engaged in using yarn for manufacturing purposes. If such a representative were appointed, it would, to a certain extent, meet the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander). On paragraph (c) I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is his intention, after consulting the Joint Committee of Cotton Trade Organisations to see that the person appointed shall be a member of the cotton operatives' trade union or one or other of the—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member would not be in order in going into that question on this Amendment.

Mr. ROWSON: If it is out of order, Mr. Speaker, I shall not pursue it, but I thought as the new Clause had been moved and the Amendment to it was under discussion, I could refer to it.
Question put, "That the word 'six' stand part of the proposed Clause."

The House divided: Ayes, 237; Noes, 122.

Division No. 125.]
AYES.
[3.45 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Denville, Alfred
Kerr, J. G. (Scottish Universities)


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Kirkpatrick, W. M.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Dodd, J. S.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Albery, I. J.
Donner, P. W.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Latham, Sir P.


Anderson, sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Drewe, C.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
Leckie, J. A.


Apsley, Lord
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Dugdale, Major T. L.
Lees-Jones, J.


Assheton, R.
Duggan, H. J.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Astor, Visc'tess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Duncan, J. A. L.
Levy, T.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Dunglass, Lord
Lewis, O.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Dunne, P. R. R.
Liddall, W. S.


Balniel, Lord
Eckersley, P. T.
Liewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Lloyd, G. W.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Ellis, Sir G.
Loder, Captain Hon. J. de V.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Eimley, Viscount
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Emery, J. F.
Lumley, Capt. L. R.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)


Bernays, R. H.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. Sir C. G.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Entwistle, C. F.
M'Connell, Sir J.


Blair, Sir R.
Errington, E.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)


Blindell, Sir J.
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Macdonald, Capt. p. (Isle of Wight)


Bossom, A. C.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
McEwen, Capt. H. J. F.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Everard, W. L.
McKle, J. H.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Findlay, Sir E.
Maclay, Hon. J. P.


Brass, Sir W.
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Fraser, Capt. Sir I.
Magnay, T.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Furness, S. N.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Ganzoni, Sir J.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Brown, Brlg.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Markham, S. F.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Gledhill, G.
Maxwell, S. A.


Bull, B. B.
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Goldle, N. B.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Goodman, Col. A. W.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)


Butler, R. A.
Gower, Sir R. V.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Caine, G. R. Hall-
Graham Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Morgan, R. H.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)


Cary, R. A.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Munro, P. M.


Cautley, Sir H. S.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Grimston, R. V.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Gunston, Capt. D, W.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Christie, J. A.
Guy, J. C. M.
Owen, Major G.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Cobb, Sir C. S.
Hamilton, Sir G. C.
Patrick, C. M.


Colfox, Major W. P.
Hanbury, Sir C.
Petherick, M.


Colman, N. C. D.
Hannah, I. C.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Pilkington, R.


Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Hartington, Marquess of
Pownall, Sir A. Assheton


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Harvey, G.
Proctor, Major H. A.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Dufff(W'st'r S.G'gs)
Hepworth, J.
Radford, E. A.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Ramsden, Sir E.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Unlv's)


Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.
Holdsworth, H.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Craddock, Sir R. H.
Holmes, J. S.
Remer, J. R.


Cranborne, Viscount
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Critchley, A.
Hopkinson, A.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Crooke, J. S.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Rowlands, G.


Cross, R. H.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Crossley, A. C.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Runciman. Rt. Hon. W.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Hulbert, N. S.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)


Culverwell, C. T.
Hunter, T.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Davison, Sir W. H.
Jackson, Sir H.
Salmon, Sir I.


De Chair, S. S.
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Samuel, Sir A. M. (Farnham)


De la Bère, R.
Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)>


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Sanderson, Sir F. B.




Sandys, E. D.
Sutcllffe, H.
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Savery, Servington
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Wells, S. R.


Scott, Lord William
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Williams, C (Torquay)


Shakespeare. G. H.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Touche, G. C.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.
Train, Sir J.
Wilson, Lt. Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Smith, L. W. (Hallam)
Tree, A. R. L. F.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.
Wise, A. R.


Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.
Turton, R. H.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Spender-Clay, Lt.-CI. Rt. Hn. H. H.
Wakefield, W. W.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fyide)
Wallace, Captain Euan
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)
Ward, liene (Wallsend)



Storey, S.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Strickland. Captain W. F.
Warrender, Sir V.
Sir George Penny and Lieut.-


Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Waterhouse, Captain C.
Colonel Sir A, Lambert Ward.




NOES.


Adams, D. (consett)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Price, M. P.


Adamson, W. M.
Hardle, G. D.
Pritt, D. N.


Alexander. Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Harris, Sir P. A.
Quibell, J. D.


Ammon, C. G.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Holland, A.
Ritson. J.


Attlee. Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hollins, A.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Banfield, J. W.
Hopkin, D.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Barnes. A. J.
Jagger, J.
Rowson, G.


Barr, J.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Batey, J.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Sexton, T. M.


Benson, G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Shinwell, E.


Bevan, A.
Kelly, W. T.
Short, A.


Bromfield, W.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Silverman, S. S.


Brooke, W.
Kirby, B. V.
Simpson, F. B.


Buchanan, G.
Kirkwood, D.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Burke. W. A.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cassells, T.
Lathan, G.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Charleton, H. C.
Lawson, J. J.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Chater, D.
Leach, W.
Stephen, C.


Cluse, W. S.
Leonard, W.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Leslie, J. R.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Cocks. F. S.
Logan, D. G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Cove, W. G.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Thorne, W.


Daggar, G.
McGhee, H. G.
Thurtie, E.


Dalton, H.
McGovern, J.
Tinker, J. J.


Davles, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Maclean, N.
Viant, S. P.


Davles, S. O. (Merthyr)
MacMlllan, M. (Western Isles)
Walker, J.


Day, H.
MacNeill, Weir, L.
Watkins, F. C.


Dobble, W.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Watson, W. McL.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Mander, G. le M.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Ede, J. C.
Marklew, E.
Westwood, J.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Marshall, F.
White, H. Graham


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Mathers, G.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Maxton, J.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Foot, D. M.
Milner, Major J.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Gallacher, W.
Montague, F.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Gardner, B. W.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Muff, G.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Naylor, T. E.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Parker, H. J. H.



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Potts, J.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Groves.

Division No. 126.]
AYES.
[4.58 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Everard, W. L.
Moreing, A. C.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Fildes, Sir H.
Morgan, R. H.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Findlay, Sir E.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)


Albery, I. J.
Foot, D. M.
Morrison, W S. (Cirencester)


Alexander, Brig.-Gen. Sir W.
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Fraser, Capt. Sir I.
Munro, P.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Furness, S. N.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.


Assheton, R.
Ganzoni, Sir J.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Astor, Visc'tess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Owen, Major G.


Balniel, Lord
Gledhill, G.
Patrick, C. M.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Peake, O.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Goodman, Col. A. W.
Penny, Sir G.


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N
Petherick, M.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Beit, Sir A. L.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Pownall, Sir A. Assheton


Bernays, R. H.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Procter, Major H. A.


Birchall. Sir J. D.
Grimston, R. V.
Radford, E. A.


Blair, Sir R.
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Blindell, Sir J.
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Bossom, A. C.
Guy, J. C. M.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Hamilton, Sir G. C.
Roid, W. Allan (Derby)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Hanbury, Sir C.
Remer, J. R.


Braithwalte, Major A. N.
Hannah, I. C.
Roberts, W (Cumberland, N.)


Brass, Sir W.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Robinson, J R. (Blackpool)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hartington, Marquess of
Ropner, Colonel L.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Harvey, G.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Rowlands, G.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Hepworth, J.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Bull, B. B.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. W.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Holdsworth, H.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Holmes, J. S.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Cartland, J. R. H.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Samuel, Sir A. M. (Farnham)


Cary, R. A.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)


Cautley, Sir H. S.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Sandys, E. D.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Scott, Lord William


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Christie, J. A.
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Clarke. F. E.
Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Clarry, Sir R. G.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Kerr, H. W. (Oldnam)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Cobb, Sir C. S.
Kerr, J. G. (Scottish Universities)
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Colfox, Major W. P.
Kirkpatrick, W. M.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Latham, Sir P.
Spender-Clay, Lt.-Cl. Rt. Hn. H. H.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff(W'st'r S.G'gs)
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Leckie, J. A.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Craddock, Sir R. H.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Critchley, A.
Levy, T.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Cross, R. H.
Lewis, O.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Crossley, A. C.
Liddall, W. S.
Sutcliffe, H.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Culverwell, C. T.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C. C.
MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. Sir C. G.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Davison, Sir W. H.
M'Connell, Sir J.
Touche, G. C.


De Chair, S. S.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


De la Bère, R.
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)
Turton, R. H.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Wakefield. W. W.


Denville, Alfred
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Dodd, J. S.
McEwen, Capt. H. J. F.
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Donner, P. W.
McKle, J. H.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Warrender, Sir V.


Drewe, C.
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
Magnay, T.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Wells, S. R.


Dugdale, Major T. L.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
White, H. Graham


Duncan, J. A. L.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Dunglass, Lord
Markham, S. F.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Elliston, G. S.
Maxwell, S. A.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Elmley, Viscount
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Emery, J. F.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)



Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES —


Errington, E.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Major George Davies and Lieut.-




Colonel Llewellin.







NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Quibell, J. D.


Adamson, W. M.
Holland, A.
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Hollins, A.
Riley, B.


Ammon, C. G.
Hopkin, D.
Ritson, J.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Jagger, J.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Banfied, J. W.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Rowson, G.


Barnes, A. J.
Kelly, W. T.
Sanders, W. S.


Barr, J.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Sexton, T. M.


Batey, J.
Kirby, B. V.
Shinwell, E.


Benson, G.
Kirkwood, D.
Short, A.


Bevan, A,
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Silverman, S. S.


Bromfield, W.
Lathan, G.
Simpson, F. B.


Brooke, W.
Leach, W.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Buchanan, G.
Lee, F.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Burke, W. A.
Leonard, W.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Cape, T.
Leslie, J. R.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Casseils, T.
Logan, D. G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Chater, D.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Stephen, C.


Cluse, W. S.
McGhee, H. G.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
McGovern, J.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Cocks, F. S.
MacLaren, A.
Thorne, W.


Cove, W. G.
Maclean, N.
Thurtle, E.


Daggar, G.
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Tinker, J. J.


Dalton, H.
MacNeill, Weir, L.
Viant, S. P.


Davies R. J. (Westhoughton)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Walker, J.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Marklew, E.
Watson, W. McL.


Day, H.
Marshall, F.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Dobbie, W.
Maxton, J.
Westwood, J.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Milner, Major J.
Whiteley, W.


Ede, J. C.
Montague, F.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Morrison, R. C, (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Muff, G.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Frankel, D.
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Gallacher, W.
Oliver, G. H.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Gardner, B. W.
Paling, W.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Parker, H. J. H.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Parkinson, J. A.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Groves, T. E.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.



Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Potts, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hardle, G. D.
Price, M. P.
Mr. Mathers and Mr. Charleton.


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Pritt, D. N.

Clause added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Annual reports to be made by Spindles Board.)

As soon as may be after the end of the year beginning on the appointed day, and of each of the next subsequent fourteen years being a year for which the spindles levy is payable, the Spindles Board shall prepare and submit to the Board of Trade a report on the operations of the Spindles Board during that year, and the Board of Trade shall, as soon as may he, lay before each House of Parliament a copy of every report submitted to the Board in pursuance of this section.—[Mr. Runciman.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

5.8 p.m.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This is a recommendation which I make to the House now in order to carry out what was the obvious desire of the Committee upstairs. In most quarters in the Committee there was a general desire that there should be an annual report on the operations of the Spindles Board, and we think it possible that in the early years of the scheme there may be some

information that could properly be published which would not in the ordinary way be included in the accounts. The new Clause provides that an annual report shall be laid, but I ought to add that it does not prescribe or attempt to prescribe the exact form that the report should take. There is, however, one point which I think justifies us in saying that we must leave to the board the selection of the exact information which it makes public, and that is that it would be possible, if particulars were indiscreetly published, that they might do more harm than good to the industry. In these circumstances I think we must leave those specially charged with the duty of dealing with the prosperity of the industry as a whole to refrain from giving such information as might do harm through competition from abroad.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause added to the Bill.

CLAUSE 1.—(The Spindles Board.)

5.10 p.m.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I beg to move, in page 1, line 9, to leave out "in Great Britain."
This Amendment has to be read in conjunction with a later Amendment, in Clause 22, to insert "Scotland or." The effect of the two Amendments taken together is to omit Scotland from the scope of the Bill. When the Bill was in Committee and the question of the inclusion of Scotland in the Bill was under consideration, the right hon. Gentleman who was in charge of the Bill was asked whether he could say that the owners of the Scottish spindles were in favour of inclusion in the Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman did not answer that question. The question which he did answer was quite a different one. He answered that the Scottish mill owners were included with the English owners in the ballot, and that when he was giving the figures with regard to the result of the ballot, the Scottish opinion was included for the whole country with the English opinion. I suggest that that was really evading the issue, and I have been asked to-day by a firm of cotton spinners in Musselburgh, in my constituency of East Edinburgh, to move for the omission of Scotland from the Bill. Not only have I been asked by that firm, but I have been asked by the Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce also to take that line.
Why did the right hon. Gentleman evade the issue of whether Scotland was or was not in favour of this proposal? The answer, of course, is, as might be expected by the House, that he could not say that Scotland was in favour of inclusion in the Bill, because of the facts which I will now proceed to discover. Something like 100 years ago there were about 100 cotton spinning mills in Scotland, according to my information, but in the course of the last 100 years they have come down until at the present time there are only about seven cotton spinning mills in Scotland. One of those mills is a subsidiary of an English company, and another is owned by a company which also has mills in England. That leaves five purely Scottish mills, and I am informed that those remaining five are unanimously opposed to the inclusion of Scotland in this Measure. They have very good reasons for taking that view. In the first place, those owners who own mills in England as well as in Scotland are quite likely, if this Bill be carried into law, to close down their Scottish

mills and to keep open and running their English mills.
But, apart from that question, what are the facts? This Bill is designed to deal with redundant spindles. My information is that there are no redundant spindles in Scotland. It seems to us obviously unjust and unfair that a proposal should be made to impose a tax upon Scottish mills because of the over-capitalisation of the mills in Lancashire. It is unjustifiable, bemuse of the uneconomic action of the mill owners of England and of the over-development in Lancashire. We see no reason whatever why the burden should be put upon the cotton spinning industry of Scotland. The bulk of the cotton spinning in Scotland is carried out in Scottish factories which both spin and weave, and use the yarn. The Scottish manufacturers, who spin the yarn, which they use in their own factories, at present compete upon level terms with the English manufacturers. Cotton can be imported directly into Scotland by direct steamers from America, Egypt, India and other places,' and be as cheaply imported as into England. It can be spun as cheaply in Scotland as in England, but if Scotland is included within the scope of the Bill, the Scottish manufacturers will be handicapped in various ways. They will become liable to this taxation owing to causes for which they are not in the least responsible. Suppose that a Scottish manufacturer and a user of yarn desire to extend his factories. At the present time he is being supplied by his own spinning, but after the Bill comes into operation this manufacturer will be practically compelled to import yarn from the English spinning mills. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why? "] Because the provisions of the Bill are opposed to the creation of additional spindles?

Mr. REMER: Has the hon. Gentleman noticed that Clauses 6 and 15 which deal with this question of spindles are withdrawn from the Bill.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: There may be some slight improvement in that respect, but, at the same time, there is a great disadvantage in the Bill as far as it affects the Scottish manufacturers. In these circumstances I am asked by, spinners and by the Chamber of Commerce in Edinburgh to move the exclusion of Scotland from the Bill. If the right


hon. Gentleman doubts the Scottish position and will ask his right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, who sits for the constituency of Leith, he will be told that the Leith Chamber of Commerce also ask for the exclusion of Scotland from the Bill. I hope, therefore, that the House will pass this Amendment. The points really are, first, the injury to the cotton Spinning industry in Scotland; and, secondly, the injury to the manufacturing industries which employ cotton. If Scotland remains unfairly within the scope of this Measure, the effect will be to confine, injure and limit the cotton trade in Scotland and to favour its increase in England. That ought not to be the action of this House, and the majority of the Members of this House ought not to penalise and injure the industry in Scotland for the benefit of the industry in England. I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Amendment. If he does not do so, I shall be obliged to take the question to a division, when, I hope, the House will support me in moving the omission of Scotland from this Bill.

Mr. TINKER: I beg to second the Amendment.

5.21 p.m.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The proposal made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) is that there should be a distinction drawn between cotton mills and cotton users in Scotland and those in England. His ground for so suggesting to the House is, that he sees some new hardship to be borne by the spinners of Scotland which is not shared by their compatriots in England. I do not know where the hon. Gentleman obtained his information, but I can assure him that the object of the Bill throughout is to put all spinning mills on the same footing, whether in England or in Scotland. In order that we may ascertain how far that can comply with Scottish opinion we have to take account, of course, of the information which he brings to the House, but he is in this respect giving us information which has already been received from at least one other Chamber of Commerce since the Bill was introduced. It was found in that case that the Chamber itself was not well informed as to the provisions of the Bill, and was certainly misinformed as to the opinion of the

cotton spinners. What happened in the case of Glasgow and the West of Scotland may not be identical with what has happened in the East of Scotland, but I can assure him that from the information which we have obtained with regard to the inquiries circulated by those authorities, it was found that certainly well over one-half of the spindles in Scotland were not spindles owned by opponents of this Measure, and that the provisions of the Bill were accepted by some of the principal owners of cotton mills as being fair and reasonable.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that these are owners who own spindles in Scotland alone, or are they owners who take the same view as the right hon. Gentleman, those who, in addition to owning spindles in Scotland, own spindles in England?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have no doubt that some have owned spindles on both sides of the Border, but that is not a reason why they should be treated differently from their compatriots who were on one side alone, either North or South. That makes no difference at all. The whole object of the Bill is, by imposing a levy, to provide the Spindles Board with funds out of which they can make the purchase of redundant spindles. The wiping out of redundant spindles will be a matter for inquiry, whether North or South of the Border. Those who have spindles and do not wish to sell them, need not do so. There is no compulsion. The only compulsion is that which provides for a uniform levy. It is clear from what the hon. Gentleman said that, if that compulsion were not included in the Bill, his friends would at any rate try to keep out of the liability. That is not unusual, and, having some Scottish antecedents myself, I am not unaware of the keenness of that race when they come to bargaining with the Exchequer or with the Spindles Board. The truth is that these undertakings in Scotland which are opposed to the imposition of the levy may be companies or concerns which later on may desire that some of their redundant spindles shall be taken off their hands.
If there were a levy imposed in England and not in Scotland at all, and there was, as we anticipate, some considerable advantage to the spinning sec-


tion of the industry as a result of the operation of the Bill, Scotland would get such benefits as might be provided in that way without making her contribution. I do not believe that that is the view of Scotland. I was in some doubt as to what was the view of the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce, which at one stage, before the Bill had been discussed in Committee, declared that they were not in favour of it. When they communicated with one of my hon. Friends in Committee upstairs, I was confirmed in the view that they had not grasped fully the opinion of their industry in Scotland. I made inquiries myself, and I had the pleasure of meeting the President of the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce in Glasgow, and I saw the officials of the chamber. I also met those who represent one of the largest of the cotton spinning companies in Scotland. The result was that a letter was sent by Messrs. J. and P. Coats, who own over one—half of the spindles in Scotland, to the Chamber of Commerce in Glasgow, in which they said:
With reference to the copy of your letter of February lath, addressed to the President of the Board of Trade, we desire to dissociate ourselves from the opinion attributed to the spinners in Scotland and wish to define our attitude, which is, that we are buyers of yarn and not sellers, and, taking a long view of the welfare of the industry as a whole, have no objection to the Cotton Spinning Industry Bill. We should be glad if you could send a copy of this letter to the President of the Board of Trade.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: That is one of the two firms to which I referred.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not know whether this is one of the firms in the mind of the hon. Gentleman, but it is certain that they control over one-half of the spindles of Scotland, and it would be preposterous to say that there was a majority of spindles in Scotland in favour of the view which the hon. Gentleman has enunciated this afternoon. In the circumstances in which we are to operate on a national basis we cannot draw any distinction between the industry on the North and the South of the Border, and therefore we are unable to accept the Amendment.

5.29 p.m.

Mr. REMER: I am glad that my right hon. Friend is resisting the Amendment.
Although I still dislike the Bill to a considerable extent, if the Measure is to go through everybody ought to be in it. I regret that Mr. Speaker has not called another Amendment dealing with the question of the ballot. There is a great difference of opinion as to how many spindles there are in the United Kingdom. They cannot be ascertained, for the reason that Messrs. J. and P. Coats, to whom the right hen. Gentleman has referred, are not members of the Master Cotton Spinners' Association and have refused consistently to give any information to them. If I may keep within the bounds of order, may I suggest that if between now and the Report stage there could be inserted in mother place something in the Bill which would find out what really are the views of all the companies concerned, it would be to our advantage.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: I supported this Amendment in Committee, and I am not quite satisfied with the explanation given to-day by the President of the Board of Trade. He tells us that the great firms are in favour of the Bill. My information is that those who are supporting the Bill are the great monopolists, the great combines, who desire to stamp out the little men.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): There is not a word of truth in that statement.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The Parliamentary Secretary says that there is not a word of truth in that statement. Is it not curious that on every occasion in Committee it was explained to us that the great combines were all in favour of the Bill and that the opponents were the small firms. That statement is true. Therefore, the Parliamentary Secretary cannot support his argument that there is not a word of truth in my statement. My statement is in line with the facts. This is an age whey everyone seems to think it wise to form trusts and combines. I was brought up in an age of free competition and was taught to regard that as more desirable, and I still think that it is. That is largely why I have been somewhat critical of the Bill. I do not see why we should not try an experiment. Let Lancashire have the Bill and let Scotland do without it.
Scotland as a spinning area is not very large; at any rate not so large that it would wreck the English scheme, assuming that the scheme is a good one. We should then have an opportunity of seeing the two schemes in operation simultaneously, one in a part of the world where perfect freedom would exist and where no money would be spent in buying up spindles and where no levy would be imposed. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) says that if spindles are to be bought out, let the Scotsmen pay their share. It is suggested that the levy would not be so great if there is to be no purchase of spindles in Scotland. The English levy would deal with the purchase of the English spindles and there would be no Scottish levy with which to buy Scottish spindles. Therefore, I doubt whether the levy of Lancashire, Yorkshire and Cheshire would be any the greater if Scotland were left out.

Mr. REMER: There are very few spindles in Scotland.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Yes, but there are sufficient to enable one to carry out an experiment which may be worth while, in order to see whether free enterprise or organised trustification is the best. Here is a chance to try it. The President of the Board of Trade is for trustification, more or less. The underlying principle of it is in the Bill, and it will be very easy later on to build on it and to apply more coercion. This is only the beginning of coercion. I should like to see the system of freedom in Scotland, and the system of tyranny tried in Lancashire, if they want it. For that reason I support the Amendment.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. ROWSON: I support the Amendment on the ground that there is a difference between the position in Lancashire and the position in Scotland. The President of the Board of Trade has made great play with the point that Messrs. J. & P. Coats own more than half the spindles in Scotland, and they are in favour of the Bill. They also own, or partly own, certain spindles in Lancashire. J. & P. Coats use all the yarn that they manufacture themselves in Scotland, and I understand that there are no surplus spindles in Scotland. Therefore, there is no problem for Scotland, and if we are going to impose the

levy on Scotland, Scotland will be penalised. It is no small amount of levy that we are going to impose. I understand that, roughly, the amount that they would have to pay would be £480 for 100,000 spindles per year, and they would get no return. If J. & P. Coats pay the levy and support the Bill they may be able to get rid of some of the spindles they have in Lancashire. Perhaps they will be able to bring the monopoly to Scotland and have some mills built there under their own direct control.
It is admitted that this problem of spindles is a Lancashire one. I do not think that affairs in Scotland have anything to do with the situation which has arisen in Lancashire. The real trouble has been mainly in Lancashire, due to over-capitalisation and many other things which brought about over-development of the industry in years gone by, and now the people who did that are coming to the Rouse and asking to be extricated from the position that they created for themselves. We ought to accept the Amendment and exclude Scotland and make the people in Lancashire face their own problems with their own finance. Then it would be fair play and there would be fair play for Scotland.

5.38 p.m.

Mr. RADFORD: The hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Rowson) has referred to the Lancashire cotton spinning troubles as being of their own creation. Those troubles, and he ought to know it, seeing that he lives in Lancashire, are due to the people in the East beginning to supply themselves with cotton goods, with the result that Britain's cotton trade has shrunk to half its normal dimensions. The consumption of cotton goods from Britain is not more than half what it used to be. That has nothing to do with any question of the so-called ramps in 1920–21. The proposal to exclude Scotland from the provisions of the Bill is monstrous. What difference is there from the point of view of industry and the application, say, of import duties, between Scotland and England? There is none. We might as well say that one of our counties, say, Cheshire, should be excluded from the Bill, as to say that Scotland should be excluded.
The purpose of the Bill is to eliminate redundant cotton spinning mills and plant, so enabling the remaining mills


to run nearer to 100 per cent. of their capacity, to reduce their cost of production and to have a better chance to make a good show. If either Scotland or an individual county in this country, other than Lancashire, were to be excluded from the operations of the Bill the cotton mills in the excluded areas would have all the benefits arising from the Bill, because the redundant mills would have been cleared away, there would be reduced competition, and they would be able to do much better, without bearing any share of the cost. I am sorry that Northern Ireland has been excluded from the Bill. I do not know why it was excluded and I do not know to what extent there are cotton spinning mills in Northern Ireland. It is a wrong principle that any area which shares in our economic life should be excluded from the Bill. I am glad that the President of the Board of Trade has definitely indicated that the Government will not accept the Amendment.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: I do not know where the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) got his figures when he suggested that the levy would be reduced. It is a fixed levy. It is fixed by the Bill.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: Therefore there would be no increase if we leave Scotland out.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: That is true, but that is not the point that the hon. Member was making. The point that he was making was that there would be a decrease in the levy.

Mr. WILLIAMS: No. The suggestion was made that if we left Scotland out a new burden would be placed on England. I was merely pointing out that as the Bill stands there cannot be any increased levy by leaving Scotland out, which was the argument brought against the Amendment.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: That was not what the hon. Member said. No Member of this House has been keener on getting fair play as he calls it, in his protective policy as between the producers in this country and other countries, than the hon. Member. He wanted them to start on a level. Why not apply the same

principle to this Bill? I am against the Bill, and if everybody was left out I should be in agreement with that, but I cannot see that it is fair to distinguish between one producer and another. That is completely unfair. I am surprised that there is support for the Amendment from the Labour benches. One hon. Member from Lancashire wants to put his Lancashire producers in a worse position than the Scottish producers. I hope that his constituents will notice his speech. I suggest in all seriousness that if there is to be a spindles levy it, should be contributed to by all those who are producing yarn. There is a good deal to be said from the point of view of the President of the Board of Trade. Knowing the history of the hon. Member for South Croydon in regard to demanding that fair conditions should apply to our own manufacturers, I would suggest that he should take his protective principles a little further and assure fair play as between one producer and another in whatever part of these islands those producers may be found. I shall support the President of the Board of Trade in opposing the Amendment.

5.43 p.m.

Mr. LEVY: If the Amendment were carried the Scottish people would have all the advantage without making any contribution. I join with the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) in the hope that Lancashire and Yorkshire constituents will make a note of the fact that their representatives are endeavouring to penalise Lancashire and Yorkshire to the advantage of Scotland. The Bill is essentially a cotton industries Bill and it is dealing with the cotton industry as such, wherever it may be found in Great Britain, with the exception of Northern Ireland. I hope the hon. Member will withdraw the Amendment. Surely he realises that it is never his intention that the Scottish people should have an advantage over the Lancashire people without making any contribution.

5.44 p.m.

Mr. SILVERMAN: Nothing is more remarkable than the attitude of the opponents of the Amendment, and of various Amendments which are introduced with the object of improving the Bill or of limiting the harm that it does. There has been no more inveterate opponent of the Bill than the hon. Member for South


Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth). He says that this is a bad Bill and that it is going to do a great deal of harm, but God forbid that the harm should not be done to Scotland also. It is a most remarkable attitude for any opponent of the Measure to adopt. He reminds me of the fox in the old fable, who got caught in a trap with the result that he lost his tail. At first he was ashamed and did not want to be seen in public. He shut himself up in a cave, but then remembered that he could not stay like that for ever, and decided to make a virtue of necessity. He came out and the only thing he could do then was to go to the other foxes and point out how much better it was to be relieved of that heavy and clumsy appendage. So the hon. Member resists as far as he can the application of this Measure to his own constituency, but fearing that he cannot get out of it quite as easily as that says, "Very well, let Scotland have it too."

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: The point I made was that we should not suffer an extra injustice in England because you are not going to impose it on Scotland.

Mr. SILVERMAN: I understood that the hon. Member and the hon. Member opposite, with whom his political outlook is always so synonymous, were combining to blame Lancashire Members for wanting to leave Scotland out, but for quite opposite and mutually contradictory reasons. The hon. Member for South Bradford blames Lancashire Members for wanting to leave Scotland out, because he thinks Scotland ought to suffer the same harm as Lancashire, whereas the hon. Member on the other side of the House is blaming Lancashire Members for wanting to deprive Scotland of the advantages which the Measure is going to confer on the industry as a whole. The House can safely leave the two hon. Members to fight the matter out.
So far as the Amendment is concerned, we say that there are not two cotton industries, one in Lancashire and another in Scotland. It is not a question of putting the same advantages or disadvantages on both in order that they may compete with one another on fair terms. We say that the Measure is thoroughly bad. If we could we would delete Great Britain and insert nothing in its place.

We do not want the Measure at all, but if we are going to limit the damage which the Bill will cause and save any part of the industry from injury, then the only consistent attitude for an inveterate opponent of the Measure like the hon. Member for South Bradford is to support those who are trying to limit the harm the Measure may do and save anyone from its bad effects. I hope the House will pass the Amendment.

5.52 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I do not remember that this point has been raised before. I have never been able to understand the attitude of Parliament towards Scotland in respect of Bills which are passed through this House. Only this morning I sat on Standing Committee B dealing with a Bill to restrict Sunday trading in shops, and we were told that the Bill was not going to apply to Scotland simply because the Scottish people do not want it. Many Bills passed in this Parliament do not apply to Scotland. There is the question of education, on which there are two separate Committees discussing two separate Bills, one for Scotland and the other for England and Wales. I am wondering why there are two Bills in the case of education, but in the case of the Bill which we are now considering there is only one covering England, Scotland and Wales. I could not understand why Scottish Members of all parties did not rise up in their wrath when the hon. Member compared Scotland with Cheshire.

Mr. REMER: Does not the hon. Member know that Cheshire is the most wonderful county in the whole of the country?

Mr. DAVIES: It may be wonderful without being intelligent.

Mr. REMER: And it is also the most intelligent as well.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): I thought we were discussing Scotland.

Mr. DAVIES: I ask the Parliamentary Secretary how it comes about that while in the main Bills passed by the House of Commons do not include Scotland, yet on this occasion this Bill does include


Scotland? As far as I know there is more reason for including Scotland on this occasion than for including it most other occasions.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the on Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 242; Noes, 118.

Division No. 127.]
AYES.
[5.55 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Duncan, J. A. L.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Dunglass, Lord
McKie, J. H.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Maclay, Hon. J. P.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Ellis, Sir G.
Magnay, T.


Alexander, Brig.-Gen. Sir W.
Elliston, G. S.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Eimley, Viscount
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Emery, J. F.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Markham, S. F.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Errington, E.
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.


Assheton, R.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Maxwell, S. A.


Astor, Visc'tess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Mayhew, Lt -Col. J.


Atholl, Duchess of
Findlay, Sir E.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)


Balniel, Lord
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Fraser, Capt. Sir I.
Mill, Sir F. (Leyton, E)


Baxter, A. Beverley
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Furness, S. N.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.


Beit, Sir A. L.
Ganzoni, Sir J.
Moreing, A. C.


Bernays, R. H.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)


Blair, Sir R.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)


Blindell, Sir J.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Gledhill, G.
Munro, P.


Bossom, A. C.
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Goodman, Col. A. W.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.


Bracken, B.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Owen, Major G.


Brass, Sir W.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Patrick, C. M.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Peake, O.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Penny, Sir G.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Grimston, R. V.
Petherick, M.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Pilkington, R.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Guy, J. C. M.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Bull, B. B.
Hamilton, Sir G. C.
Pownall, Sir A. Assheton


Bullock, Capt. M.
Hanbury, Sir C.
Procter, Major H. A.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Hannah, I. C.
Radford, E. A.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Harvey, G.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Cary, R. A.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Rankin, R.


Cautley, Sir H. S.
Hepworth, J.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Holdsworth, H.
Remer, J. R.


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Holmes, J. S.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Christie, J. A.
Hore-Bellsha, Rt. Hon. L.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Clarke, F. E.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Clarry, Sir R. G.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Colfox, Major W. P.
Hulbert, N. J.
Rowlands, G.


Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. W.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff(W'st'r S.G'gs)
Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Keeling, E. H.
Samuel, Sir A. M. (Farnham)


Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)


Craddock, Sir R. H.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Sandys, E. D.


Critchley, A.
Kerr, J. G. (Scottish Universities)
Scott, Lord William


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Kirkpatrick, W. M.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Show, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Cross, R. H.
Latham, Sir P.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Crossley, A. C.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Leckie, J. A.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Culverwell, C. T.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Davison, Sir W. H.
Lees-Jones, J.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


De Chair, S. S.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


De la Bère, R.
Levy, T.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lewis, O.
Southby, Comdr A. R. J.


Denville, Alfred
Liddall, W. S.
Spender-Clay Lt.-Cl. Rt. Hn. H. H.


Dodd, J. S.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Spens, W. P


Donner, P. W.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. Sir C. G.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Drewe, C.
M'Connell, Sir J.
Storey, S.


Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
McCorquodale, M. S.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Dugdale, Major T. L.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon M. (Ross)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)




Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Wise, A. R.


Sutcliffe, H.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Warrender, Sir V.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
Waterhouse, Captain C.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Touche, G. C.
Wayland, Sir W. A.



Tree, A. R. L. F.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYSS.—


Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.
Wells, S. R.
Major George Davies and Lieut.-


Turton, R. H.
White, H. Graham
Colonel Llewellin.


Wallace, Captain Euan
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G





NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Adamson, W. M.
Hardie, G. D.
Potts, J.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Price, M. P.


Ammon, C. G.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Pritt, D. N.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Holland, A.
Quibell, J. D.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hollins, A.
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


Banfield, J. W.
Hopkin, D.
Riley, B.


Barnes, A. J.
Jagger, J.
Ritson, J.


Barr, J.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Batey, J.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Bellenger, F.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Rowson, G.


Benson, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Sanders, W. S.


Bevan, A.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Sexton, T. M.


Bromfield, W.
Kirby, B. V.
Shinwell, E.


Brooke, W.
Kirkwood, D.
Short, A.


Buchanan, G.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Silverman, S. S.


Burke, W. A.
Lathan, G.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cape, T.
Lawson, J. J.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Casselis, T.
Leach, W.
Sorensen, R. W.


Chater, D.
Lee, F.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cluse, W. S.
Leonard, W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Leslie, J. R.
Thorne, W.


Cocks, F. S.
Logan, D. G.
Thurtle, E.


Cove, W. G.
Macdonald, G, (Ince)
Tinker, J. J.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
McGhee, H. G.
Viant, S. P.


Daggar, G.
MacLaren, A.
Walker, J.


Dalton, H.
Maclean, N.
Watson, W. McL.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
MacNeill, Weir, L.
Westwood, J.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Whiteley, W.


Day, H.
Marklew, E.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Dobble, W.
Marshall, F.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Mathers, G.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Ede, J. C.
Maxton, J.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Milner, Major J.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Montague, F.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Frankel, D.
Muff, G.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Gardner, B. W.
Oliver, G. H.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Paling, W.



Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Parkinson, J. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES —




Mr. Groves and Mr. Charleton.

CLAUSE 2.—(Powers of Spindles Board to acquire and dispose of spinning plant, etc.)

6.5 p.m.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I beg to move, in page 2, line 34, to leave out "assessable cotton mills," and to insert "cotton mills in Great Britain."
This is the fourth series of drafting Amendments which are consequent upon the dropping of Clause 6. When we come to Clause 5 I shall move, in page 5, line 8, after "mill," to insert "in Great Britain." There are three other Amendments of a somewhat similar nature. These are purely drafting Amendments.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 39, leave out "assessable cotton mills," and insert "cotton mills in Great Britain."—[Mr. Rnnciman.]

6.8 p.m.

Major PROCTER: I beg to move, in page 3, line 17, at the end, to insert:
Provided further that the board shall not permit any machinery disposed of by them under this Section to be used again for the purpose of spinning cotton yarn unless they have satisfied themselves that the said machinery was not manufactured prior to the first day of January, nineteen hundred.
I believe that unless such an Amendment is accepted, the position will arise in which the Spindles Board will acquire second-hand, old-fashioned machinery, keep it for some length of time and then sell it to those in the industry who need spindles. I am one of those who believe that if the Lancashire spinning industry is to compete with other countries; if we are to regain the premier position in the world as a cotton exporting nation,


we should have the most modern and up-to-date machinery. It is a lamentable fact that much of the machinery in the Lancashire cotton mills dates back to 1875. A great deal of it is obsolete, but because it is of British manufacture, it is robust and sound in construction, and has been kept in operation for a far longer period than it should.
Other nations came into the industry at a later period; they have utilised later inventions, and undoubtedly our competitors have in their mills the most up-to-date plant. Against modern machinery Lancashire is trying to compete with machinery much of which goes back to 1875. It is as foolish as if we tried to fight a war in which the other side were armed with weapons of precision and we with blunderbusses. America and Japan have put in new ring spindles, and if this Bill contained any provision whereby the available money would be utilised by the trade to re-equip Lancashire mills with modern machinery, it would have my heartiest support.
Furthermore, my Amendment would enable the Government to do something towards encouraging the introduction of modern machinery. If the Bill is not amended in the direction I have indicated, it will be found that the big combines, having by their price-cutting policy made derelict many mills in Lancashire, will try to expand and re-equip their mills with the cheapest machinery which they have taken from their despoiled competitors. The result will be that for four or five years, instead of buying new machinery and giving employment to the engineers, these spinners will go to the Spindles Board and purchase their machinery from it. What will happen in practice will be that the mills will sell some of their derelict, old-fashioned machinery to the Spindles Board, and other mills will buy that machinery from the board. It will be a sort of circulating library under Government auspices. It will be like the words of the song which says, "And the music goes round and round," but in this case it will be the spindles which will be going round and round from mill to mill.
The textile machinery industry is a very important one. I have in my division very large works upon which some 7,000 men depend for their livelihood, and if,

under this Bill, the Spindles Board is to be permitted to enter the second-hand machinery market—that is what this Bill allows—and compete against the up-to-date machinery made in my division it will have the effect of keeping out of employment large number of men. That is bad enough, but what is even worse is that some of our manufacturers will be fettered with and anchored to the old-fashioned machinery, as some of them are fettered with old-fashioned ideas.
When this machinery comes into the hands of the Spindles Board, there will operate the peculiar effect of the present rating system. When heavy machinery is in a mill and is being run, it is rated as machinery and obtains the benefit of derating, but the Spindles Board will lose that benefit. By some strange process of reasoning, it has been held in the courts that as soon as a cotton mill ceases to operate, the mill is no longer a cotton mill at all but is a warehouse, because it is sheltering the idle machinery contained in it. In my opinion it would be far better if the Spindles Board took all this redundant second-hand machinery, and put it under the hammer. If the mills of Lancashire were re-equipped with the latest gyroscopic spindles made in Accrington they would give increased production with less horse power, and would compete for the markets which we have lost through holding on to this obsolete machinery. I therefore beg the President of the Board of Trade to view this Amendment sympathetically, believing as I do that if he will accept it and help the trade to re-equip itself with the finest machinery, he will by that one act help the cotton trade more than by any other provision set out in the Bill.

Mr. REMER: I beg to second the Amendment.

6.16 p.m.

Dr. BURGIN: Nobody will differ in desiring that the Spindles Board should, as far as possible, not enter into the second-hand machinery market nor allow old machinery to circulate from mill to mill. The only point is whether it is well to leave that matter to the discretion of the Spindles Board or whether we should attempt to put into the Bill any precise words as to what the board shall or shall not do. The object of the Amendment is to secure that old machinery, which for this purpose is de-


fined as machinery manufactured before 1900, should not be disposed of except for the purposes of being sold for scrap. I have no doubt that in practice the board will sell machinery which is out of date for scrap, but there are certain types of machinery of which it is possible to repair the wearing parts regardless of the date of manufacture of the frame or the engine as a whole. A carding engine, for instance, may be 40 years old, but it may he working economically and may be sound because the wearing parts have been brought up to date and modernised. The hon. and gallant Member for Acerington (Major Procter) would not be averse to receiving orders in his constituency for the modernisation of old carding machines and for the wearing parts to be brought up to date, and there is no reason why the Spindles Board should not have that power. The House will remember that under Sub-section (4) the Spindles Board have the power to maintain and repair property so far as it appears necessary.

Major PROCTER: Is it the intention of this board to go in for the manufacture and repair of machinery in addition to its other functions?

Dr. BURGIN: No, it is not. The idea of the Spindles Board is to realise to the best advantage the spindles it has acquired. The whole object of the Bill is, firstly, that redundant spindles shall be purchased, and, secondly, that the board, having acquired property, shall realise it to the best advantage. The board will scrap where necessary, sell where advisable, and exchange where exchange is dictated. It is to be a sensible body of people, and it is really impossible that we should put them in leading reins and indicate in this Bill exactly what can and cannot be done. I do not think that the age of machinery as such affords a criterion of its present value. The modernisation of a spinning frame built in 1899 may well make that frame a thoroughly useful piece of machinery today. The short answer to the Amendment is, of course, that this is essentially a practical business matter which we are leaving to people competent to handle it, namely, the members of the Spindles Board. We agree with the main idea behind the Amendment, but do not think it appropriate to insert it in the

Bill and prefer to leave it to the discretion of the board.

6.19 p.m.

Mr. CLYNES: I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary has given an adequate answer to the case put up for the Amendment. If the Spindles Board is to be allowed, first, to buy machinery on the ground that it is redundant, and then to sell it presumably for use, we have surely in that sale proof of the fact that the machinery is not redundant at all. This Bill is full of provisions which tell the Spindles Board what it is and what it is not to do, and if in all other respects regarding its duties we are to lay down in the Bill what those duties are, and when we come to this primary matter we are to be told that it must be left to the discretion of the board, it is leaving a margin of liberty far too large to make this Bill useful. I gather from the arguments of the Parliamentary Secretary that he admits that the Spindles Board, having bought and then sold, might very well land us into a position where machinery may be actually sold, not twice after having been sold once, but three times, and sale and purchase may take place on the round and round illustration of the hon. and gallant Member for Accrington (Major Procter). It appears to me that if the liberty of the board is to be so large, the whole purpose of the Bill will be frustrated and the industry will not be assisted at all. If we are to have a working instrument we ought to prevent resale by the terms of the Bill. Otherwise, the purpose of the Bill will be destroyed.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. PETHERICK: The Parliamentary Secretary envisaged the possibility of machinery being sold. Suppose it is bought by the board and resold to another firm, I do not see how the question of redundancy is dealt with. Will the hon. Gentleman explain in what circumstances he is considering the possibility of the Spindles Board selling machinery?

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: I am not certain, having listened to the discussion, whether this Amendment is insufficient or not as well conceived as I thought it was. It might have been better to have moved an Amendment that the board shall not permit to be used any redundant plant it has bought. The Amendment


only restricted it in respect of plant which was out of date. The date in the Amendment was selected having regard to certain changes in the development of design. I recognise that there is a problem which perhaps is not adequately covered by the Amendment. If I were the Spindles Board and were forced to buy a mill containing a large number of spindles and certain other plant, I would want to destroy the redundant spindles, but to preserve certain other pieces of plant, because in respect of them there may not be a redundancy or the same measure of redundancy.
Nevertheless, it is a little disturbing to be told that the object of the Bill is to reduce the number of spindles. We do not know by how many. We have never been able to discover the number because nobody has been able to tell us within 3,000,000 how many spindles there are. Whatever the number turns out to be, there is to be a reduction. It is absurd to set up this complicated mechanism to give the board power to enter into negotiations to buy up mills and obtain possession of the plant in order to reduce redundancy, and then to permit the board to put that plant into operation again. The Parliamentary Secretary said the board would be a sensible body of people. If it is to be a sensible body of people there can be no harm in telling them what they must not do. If, on the other hand, they are going to do this, then, if the Bill has the purpose which we have been led to believe it has, they are going to do something silly.

Colonel Sir JOHN SHUTE: Surely the hon. Member has missed the whole point of the Bill. In spite of all the discussions we have had in Committee, he remains obstinate in not understanding it. If I buy spindles from the board, I shall at the same time have to destroy an eqivalent number of spindles in my hands.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I understand that what the board is going to do, according to that clear and intelligent interruption, is to buy good spindles in order to present them to somebody who has some rotten spindles. I should have thought an intelligent board would have bought the rotten spindles and destroyed them instead of becoming second-hand dealers in good spindles. That is what the inter-

ruption means, but if the hon. and gallant Gentleman means something different perhaps he will explain later on. Is the board going to put into use spindles which have been bought as redundant? That is the simple question to which we want an answer. The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned a carding engine 40 years old. I remember visiting an engineering factory in Lancashire in 1922 where there was working machinery 60 years old. They s Lid that although the machine was old its output completely balanced the output of the rest of the plant, and there was no advantage in scrapping it. If the Parliamentary Secretary merely wants the board to do that, I agree that the objection to the Amendment is sound, but if he wants the board to set up in business of secondhand dealers in spindles, we are entitled to a further explanation.

6.27 p.m.

Dr. BURGIN: I can only, of course, reply by permission of the House. Surely a spindle can be redundant, either because, whatever its age, there are too many of them, or because, however new it may be, it is in a concern which is not working or able to work. The Board will be able by this Bill to acquire a spindle in either of these cases. Having acquired the spindle, the Board is not going to set up in the business of using the machine. It will realise the assets that it has acquired and it will go to work always within the powers of Clause 2, Subsection (1) (a), that is to say, with a view to the elimination of redundant spinning machinery. That is the statutory power which the Spindles Board is at all times addressing itself to carry out.

Mr. SILVERMAN: The hon. Gentleman is obviously accepting the explanation in principle given by the hon. and gallant Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Sir I. Shute), but is there one word in the Bill to necessitate that when the Spindles Board disposes of spindles to a concern the concern is to sacrifice an equivalent number of spindles?

Dr. BURGIN: The hon. Member will find in a later provision of the Bill that we deal with what has to happen when a purchaser of spit dies buys. My answer to the House is not dependent on an explanation given by an hon. and


gallant Member, whether he represents the Exchange Division of Liverpool or anywhere else. In point of fact, the explanation given was a very obvious and proper one. It fits in with his statement, but that is not the basis of the reply I gave. I pointed out how spindles of various ages might be bought under varying conditions and that the Spindles Board, having acquired them, would desire to reap some gain by getting rid of them either as scrap or by exchange with a reputable firm or by direct sale. I am inclined to think that the probabilities are that a direct sale is unlikely or will happen very rarely. The number of occasions when the opportunity is likely to be presented to the Spindles Board of disposing by sale of the machinery they have acquired is, I should think, very small indeed. What I think is more likely is that somebody will come along to the Spindles Board and say, "You have what appear to me to be some perfectly good, modern spindles which you have acquired from such and such a concern. I think I could make use of those spindles. I will destroy or I will exchange so many of the spindles I have which are older or less efficient"—

Major PROCTER: Is that in the Bill?

Dr. BURGIN: "—and acquire from you, the Spindles Board, the newer spindles." The hon. and gallant Member asks whether that is in the Bill. What is in the Bill is this. Clause 2, Sub-section (4) states:
The Spindles Board may dismantle, break up, sell or otherwise dispose of any property, rights or interests acquired by them.

Major PROCTER: In exchange?

Dr. BURGIN: The words are "sell or otherwise dispose of." I am asked whether that means "exchange." Of course it does.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: There is one point which I should like to have cleared up. The statement made by the hon. and gallant Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Sir J. Shute) is not quite correct. I think such a provision was in the Bill as it was presented, but Clause 15 is out and where is there anything in the Bill now which makes it obligatory upon a man who gets new machinery to scrap an equivalent lot of

old machinery? That is not in the Bill now.

Dr. BURGIN: The hon. Member will bear in mind Clause 2, Sub-section (1) (a) where it says:
the Spindles Board may … acquire by agreement … such machinery and other things whatsoever in or on premises or land used … as the Board consider it expedient to acquire with a view to the elimination of redundant spinning machinery.
Is it not implicit in those words that the board will only acquire machinery if, by their action, the amount of cotton spinning machinery is reduced?

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: I agree on that. point, but the point I am trying to make is that there is no obligation put upon the man who wants to buy additional machinery to scrap an equivalent amount of old machinery. The hon. and gallant Member for the Exchange Division (Sir J. Shute) said in his interruption that there was but that is completely wrong, because Clause 15 has been taken out of the Bill.

Dr. BURGIN: The hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) is right in saying that the specific words to which he refers were taken out of the Bill, but I think my argument rests on the implicit deduction from the words I have quoted.

Mr. SILVERMAN: As I understand it the obligation is not to be found in the Bill at all. What the hon. Gentleman is saying is that the Spindles Board will conduct operations with a view to advancing the general purpose of the Measure, and no doubt that is so. No doubt the Spindles Board will endeavour, even when it is disposing of perfectly good spindles, to see that the general object of the elimination of redundant spindles is served, but it is one thing for the Spindles Board to sell spindles with a view to certain things happening and quite another thing to ensure that those things actually happen. As the Measure stands, may not the Spindles Board sell in good faith to a concern with a view to the elimination of redundant spindles and, after the operation is over, find there has been no elimination at all? Would it not be easier for everybody concerned, and be of assistance to the Spindles Board, if the Amendment now proposed were agreed to?

Major PROCTER: Is the Parliamentary Secretary quite right in his statement that the Spindles Board will not operate mills? There is nothing in the Bill to prevent it.

Dr. BURGIN: In reply to the last question, which is a relatively simple one compared with some of the others, I can say that the Spindles Board is a statutory Corporation and will only have the powers which are given to it by the Bill, and as there is no power under Clause 2 to operate spindle machinery I can tell the House definitely that the Spindles Board has no such power. That is quite clear. With regard to the question put in the form of a speech by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) I think there is something in what he said, but the answer is this—that he presupposes the Spindles Board will sell without inquiry. I think the hon. Member said that the Spindles Board might sell in perfect good faith and then find that the purchaser did not comply with the undertaking or assurances given. That seems to suggest that the Spindles. Board will sell without having secured satisfactory guarantees as to what will happen once the purchaser has acquired the machinery.

Mr. SILVERMAN: If this Amendment were accepted would it not make things absolutely certain and save the Spindles Board making a lot of superfluous inquiries?

Dr. BURGIN: I think the hon. Member has failed to understand what the Amendment implies. It says that machinery defined in a particular way, that is to say machinery manufactured before a particular dale, shall not be disposed of. That is quite another point. That is an attempt to define arbitrarily what is or what is not efficient machinery. What he is now asking is something much wider. He is asking me to say that no machinery when disposed of by the Spindles Board shall ever be used again.

Mr. SILVERMAN: Unless an equivalent amount of old machinery is sacrificed.

Dr. BURGIN: Whatever merit there is in that point, it does not arise on this Amendment, and it is sufficient for my purpose to deal with the Amendment. The Amendment says that machinery which is earlier than that date must not be used again, leaving it to be implied that machinery which is within the date could be used again. What the House is now asking me to say is that machinery whether before or after that date, the most modern or the most ancient, shall never be used unless some conditions are attached to its sale. It is sufficient for me to say at the moment that that point does not arise on this Amendment.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 117; Noes, 232.

Division No. 128.]
AYES.
[6.40 p.m.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Ede, J. C.
McGovern, J.


Adamson, W. M.
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
MacLaren, A.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Maclean, N.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Gallacher, W.
Marklew, E.


Banfield, J. W.
Gardner, B. W.
Marshall, F.


Barnes, A. J.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Maxton, J,


Barr, J.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Messer, F.


Batey, J.
Hardie, G. D.
Milner, Major J.


Bellenger, F.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Montague, F.


Benson, G.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Bevan, A.
Holland, A.
Muff, G.


Bromfield, W.
Hollins, A.
Oliver, G. H.


Brooke, W.
Hopkin, D.
Paling, W.


Buchanan, G.
Jagger, J.
Parkinson, J. A.


Burke, W. A.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Cape, T.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Potts, J.


Charleton, H. C.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Price, M. P.


Chater, D.
Kirby, B. V.
Pritt, D. N.


Cluse, W. S.
Kirkwood, D.
Procter, Major H. A.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Quibell, J. D.


Cocks, F. S.
Lathan, G.
Ritson, J


Cove, W. G.
Lawson, J. J.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Leach, w.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Daggar, G.
Lee, F.
Rowson, G.


Dalton, H.
Leonard, W.
Sanders, W. S.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Leslie, J. R.
Sexton, T. M.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Logan, D. G.
Shinwell, E.


Dobble, W.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Short, A.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
McGhee, H. G.
Silverman, S. S.




Simpson, F. B.
Thurtle, E.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Tinker, J. J.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, 5.)


Smith, E. (Stoke)
Viant, S. P.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)
Walker, J.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Smith, T. (Normanton)
Watkins, F. C.
Windsor, W (Hull, C.)


Sorensen, R. W.
Watson, W. McL.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Stephen, C.
Westwood, J.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Whiteley, W.



Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Wilkinson, Ellen
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Thorne, W.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)
Mr. Groves and Mr. Mathers.




NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Mander, G. le M.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Fildes, Sir H.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Findlay, Sir E.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Fraser, Capt. Sir I.
Markham, S. F.


Alexander, Brig.-Gen. Sir W.
Furness, S. N.
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Maxwell, S. A.


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Ganzoni, Sir J.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Aske, Sir R. W.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)


Assheton, R.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Atholl, Duchess of
Gledhill, G.
Moreing, A. C.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Morgan, R. H.


Balniel, Lord
Goldie, N. B.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)


Baxter, A. Beverley
Goodman, Col. A. W.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col, A. J.


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Graham Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Munro, P. M.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H.


Beit, Sir A. L.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.


Bernays, R. H.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Blair, Sir R.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Owen, Major G.


Blindell, Sir J.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Palmer, G. E. H.


Bossom, A. C.
Grimston, R. V.
Patrick, C. M.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Peake, O.


Bracken, B.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll', N. W.)
Penny, Sir G.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Guy, J. C. M.
Petherick, M.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hamilton, Sir G. C.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Hanbury, Sir C.
Plikington, R.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Hannah, I. C.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Radford, E. A.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Harbord, A.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Bull, B. B.
Harvey, G.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Rankin, R.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Rayner, Major R. H.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Cary, R. A.
Holdsworth, H.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Cautley, Sir H. S.
Holmes, J. S.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool).


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hore- Bellsha, Rt. Hon. L.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Rowlands, G.


Clarke, F. E.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Clarry, R. G.
Hulbert, N. J.
Runclman, Rt. Hon. W.


Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)


Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk N.)
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Samuel, Sir A. M. (Farnham)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff(W'st'r S.G'gs)
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Craddock, Sir R. H.
Keeling, E. H.
Sandys, E. D.


 Critchley, A.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Scott, Lord William


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Kerr, J. G. (Scottish Universities)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Kirkpatrick, W. M.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Cross, R. H.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Crossley, A. C.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Latham, Sir P.
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Culverwell, C. T.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Leckie, J. A.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Davison, Sir W. H.
Lees-Jones, J.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


De Chair, S. S.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, E.)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Levy, T.
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.


Denville, Alfred
Lewis, O.
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E, L.


Dodd, J. S.
Liddail, W. S.
Spens, W. P.


Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fyide)


Drewe, C.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
M'Connell, Sir J.
Storey, S.


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
McCorquodale, M. S.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Dugdale, Major T. L.
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Dunglass, Lord
MacDonald, Rt. Hon M. (Ross)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral sir M. F.


Elliston, G. S.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Sutcliffe, H.


Elmley, Viscount
McKie, J. H.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Touche, G. C.


Errington, E.
Magnay, T.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Making, Brig.-Gen. E.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.







Turton, H. H.
White, H. Graham
Wragg, H.


Wallace, Captain Euan
Williams, C. (Torquay)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)



Ward, Irene (Wallsend)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Warrender, Sir V.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount
Mr. James Stuart and Lieut.-


Waterhouse, Captain C.
Womersley, Sir W. J.
Colonel Llewellin. 


Wells, S. R.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

6.49 p.m.

Dr. BURGIN: I beg to move, in page 3, line 19, after "on," to insert "in connection with cotton-spinning."
During the Committee stage, an Amendment was moved to exclude gassing from the list of processes in Sub-section (5) of the Clause. The grounds were not very clearly stated, but the Government promised to look into the question of the meaning of the term "gassing." There is no ground for treating gassing differently from any other process in the list and in consequence gassing will not be omitted. There is, however, some case for considering a suggestion that the Sub-section, as drafted, might be taken as authorising the purchase of gassing or warping plant, for instance, belonging to concerns which were not engaged in cotton spinning, and this Amendment definitely limits the machinery which the Spindles Board may buy to machinery used in cotton spinning, as was the original intention of the Clause. If this Amendment is agreed to, there will be a consequential Amendment later, to Clause 21.
Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 3.—(The Advisory Committee.)

6.51 p.m.

Dr. BURGIN: I beg to move, in page 3, line 30, to leave out the Clause.
This Amendment is moved because we have put forward a new Clause defining the Advisory Committee, and consequently it is necessary to move this Clause out of the Bill.
Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 5.—(The spindles levy.)

Dr. BURGIN: I beg to move, in page 5, line 8, after "mill," to insert "in Great Britain."
This Amendment is moved obviously with the intention of preventing a mill which is outside Great Britain from contributing to the levy.

6.52 p.m.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: The Parliamentary Secretary has said that the object of the Amendment is to prevent the levy

falling upon a mill outside Great Britain, but if we levy a tax on a person we do not specify persons in Great Britain. Surely that is presumed. We only legislate in respect of our own domain. It will be interesting if the Attorney-General could tell us why this Amendment is necessary. The words seem to be unnecessary. I always oh jest to unnecessary words being in an Act of Parliament because later on judges have to scratch their heads and say, "Why are they there?" If we do not know why they are there, it is just as well that we should be told.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell): I think this is one of the drafting Amendments which have to be inserted because of the dropping of Clause 6. In that Clause there were two classes of mill, assessable and non-assessable. The words "Great Britain," are inserted to show to which mills the levy relates.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I can only speak again by leave of the House but I would like to point out that the Parliamentary Secretary has given one explanation of the Amendment, and the Attorney-General has given another. The President of the Board of Trade ought now to have a go and tell us what it is all about.

6.54 p.m.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: Is it not a criterion of interpretation that the words "cotton mill" in this Clause would necessarily be read to mean, "cotton mill in Great Britain," provided that the Clause does not apply to Northern Ireland? If you start inserting in Bills the words "Great Britain" wherever you desire to limit the ambit of a clause to Great Britain, it will mean the revision of all the Statutes of this country. It is not customary to insert words such as "in Great Britain" in Statutes, because it is a criterion of interpretation that this Clause, for instance, can only extend to mills in Great Britain. Therefore, the words are unnecessary and are not usually utilised in drafting such a Clause. Great trouble will be caused if we begin


inserting these words. They will be necessary throughout the Bill wherever anything is mentioned. You will have to put "in Great Britain" or else it will be assumed that it means something else—which is the ordinary dilemma of the draftsman, not only in this Bill but in a multitude of other Bills.

6.56 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: If I may speak again by leave of the House, I would say that I quite appreciate the importance of the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). The Clause deals primarily with owners, and in accordance with the more general principle which he has enunciated, the Amendment seeks to limit the operation of the Clause to owners in Great Britain. It was the desire to exclude from the operation of the Clause owners in Great Britain of mills outside Great Britain. It was thought that if these words were not inserted, the Bill might be supposed to cover owners in Great Britain of mills outside Great Britain. We will take proper steps to see that we do not give rise to the difficulties referred to by the hon. and learned Member.

Mr. SILVERMAN: Does not the Preamble completely cover the point which has been raised, in that it provides for
the elimination of redundant spinning machinery in cotton mills in Great Britain"?
Amendment agreed to.

6.57 p.m.

Dr. BURGIN: I beg to move, in page 5, line 23, to leave out "assessable cotton mills," and to insert "cotton mills in Great Britain."
There are three almost exactly similar Amendments, of which this is the first. They are drafting Amendments necessitated by the leaving out in Committee of Clause 6, which alone differentiated between classes of cotton mills. There is now no point in describing certain mills as assessable and leaving the other as merely cotton mills.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendments made: In page 5, line 26, leave out "which were then assessable cotton mills and," and insert "in Great Britain."
In page 6, line 25, leave out "an assessable," and insert "a."—[Dr. Burgin.]

CLAUSE 6.—(Termination of spindles levy.)

Dr. BURGIN: I beg to move, in page 7, line 11, to leave out "cease to," and to insert "not."
During the Committee discussion on Clause 7, which is now Clause 6 and which provides for the termination of the levy, there was a suggestion that the Clause, as drafted, might permit the levy to be reimposed notwithstanding the fact that it had been terminated for a particular year, and that the levy might, although stopped for that year, be capriciously reimposed at some future period of time. It is not clear that the Clause would afford that interpretation, but in order to place the matter beyond all doubt it is now suggested that the Spindles Levy should not be payable for any year whatsoever beginning after the day on which the order is made. That makes the matter abundantly clear.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: in page 7, line 11, after "year," insert "whatsoever"—[Dr. Burgin.]

CLAUSE 8.—(Estimates of expenses of Spindles Board.)

Amendment made: in page 9, line 8, after "payment," insert "as."—[Dr. Burgin.]

CLAUSE 9.—(Accounts of Spindles Board.)

Amendment made: in page 9, line 33, at the end, insert:
(3) If, after any accounts of the Spindles Board have been laid before Parliament the Board receive from any person appearing to them to be the owner of a cotton mill in Great Britain, a written demand for a copy of those accounts, the Board shall furnish such a copy to him free of charge."—[Mr. Levy.]

CLAUSE 10.—(Board of Trade to make good deficits on Spindles Board's revenue and expenditure account.)

Dr. BURGIN: I beg to move, in page 10, line 42, to leave out "they," and to insert "the Board of Trade."
There are so many boards in the Clause that it was thought desirable to put in "the Board of Trade."
Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 14.—(Returns and statistics in, respect of cotton mills.)

7.2 p.m.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 15, line 6, to leave out "fifty," and to insert "five."
The penalty of £50 provided in the Bill is for a summary conviction in respect of an offence if a person fails to send to the Spindles Board a return or causes or permits to be sent a return that he knows to be false. I do not wish to defend anybody who fails to make a return or to send a return which he knows to be false. Nevertheless, £50 seems to be a very heavy penalty. It is an unusually high penalty for failure to make a return, and for that reason a more moderate penalty ought to be inserted. I am not wedded to a penalty of £5, but I think that £50 is excessive. I ask the President of the Board of Trade to consider some modification of this excessive fine, which might be imposed for some quite minor offence. It is true that it is a maximum penalty, but when £50 is inserted in a Bill it is a hint to the magistrates as to how far they can go. I agree that for a minor offence they will not impose the full penalty, but it is a hint that Parliament expects them to impose a heavy penalty for a more serious offence.

Major PROCTER: I beg to second the Amendment.

7.3 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: In Sub-section (3, b) there occur the words
or could reasonably be expected to know.
I can understand that you can prove whether a person knew a return to be false, but what is the criterion of reasonable expectation of knowledge of either the owner or the agent of a cotton mill? Is it the same as for the man-in-the-street, or is it some higher standard which he is supposed to reach? If some higher standard is being imposed, that has a considerable bearing on the quantum of the fine which is to be imposed on him for failing to reach that higher standard. It would be interesting to hear what exactly a cotton mill owner is reasonably expected to know.

7.5 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Let me at the outset dissociate myself from the views which the hon. Member for South

Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) expressed that a maximum penalty is meant to be an indication to the court as to what penalty should be inflicted in minor cases.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I did not say that.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I will withdraw that if the hon. Gentleman did not say it. It is within the recollection of the House. The hon. Gentleman said that if Parliament puts £50 into the Clause, that is an indication that that is the sort of penalty which is meant to be imposed.

Mr. WILLIAMS: If Parliament puts £50 into a Clause and a man commits a rather minor offence, the magistrates are inclined to say £5, but if Parliament puts £5 in and a man commits an offence of the same nature, the magistrates are inclined to fine him 10s.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I think that on that explanation the only question which the House has to consider is whether £50 is an excessive penalty for the most serious offense which one might expect to be committed under this Clause. The House will see that this deals with the offence of sending in a return which a man knows to be false, a return dealing with what may be a most important matter, the period during which machinery has been working in his mills; and I do suggest to my hon. Friend, who, I hope, will forgive me for having misunderstood his remarks, that the court might well be confronted with a serious case of wilful falsehood in the return submitted, and that a penalty of £5 would be wholly inadequate. It is true that the Clause covers offences of a technical character where proceedings might not be taken, or where, if taken, a smaller penalty would meet the case. One has to trust the courts to scale down the penalty according to the gravity of the offence.
The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) asked what a millowner could reasonably be expected to know. There is nothing in the Bill that I can see to suggest that any different criterion should be applied to a millowner than, say, that which should be applied to my hon. and learned Friend himself. What anybody in any circumstances could reasonably be expected to know depends of course on the means of knowledge at his disposal. If one found


a millowner had sent in a return which conflicted with the data and information available in his books, the court would be entitled to convict him of an offence on the ground that those were facts which he could reasonably be expected to know. There is no intention in this Bill to put millowners on either a higher or a lower level of knowledge.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: In view of the explanation given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I beg to move, in page 15, line 16, at the end, to insert:
and the Spindles Board may, after consulting the Advisory Committee, publish any of the said statistics in such manner as the board think proper.
When the Bill was in Committee an Amendment was moved which would have required publication of all the information of production and working time furnished by the Spindles Board to the Advisory Committee. It was explained that there might be dangers in doing this, that it might be providing information of a valuable character to our competitors. The Amendment provides that the Spindles Board, after consulting with the Advisory Committee, may cause such of these general statistics to be published as they think desirable.
Amendment agreed to.

7.11 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 15, line 21, at the end, to insert:
(6) Proceedings in respect of any offence under this section shall not be taken in England otherwise than by, or under the authority of, the Spindles Board.
If hon. Members will look at Clause.18 they will see that Sub-section (2) provides that proceedings in respect of any offence under this Act shall not be taken in England otherwise than by the Spindles Board. It was pointed out during the discussion in Committee that under one Section an offence might be committed by the board themselves, and therefore that it would be wrong that the sole control for proceedings under the Bill should be in their hands. We promised to look into that, and the Amendment which I am now moving is the first of a series of three Amendments dealing with

that matter. We propose to put in these words in this Clause because an offence under this Clause is an offence which could not possibly be committed by the board themselves, and it is right in our view that the board should have control over these proceedings. The second Amendment inserts a similar provision in Clause 15. The third Amendment proposes to leave out Sub-section (2) in Clause 18. That leaves prosecutions possible against the Spindles Board for offences under Clause 16, which is the only Clause under which offences could be committed by the board.

Mr. SILVERMAN: On a point of Order. Are we to take it that all the Amendments which have been explained by the Attorney-General are to be discussed together?

Mr. SPEAKER: Yes.

7.15 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I desire to draw the attention of the House to the procedure which is being adopted here. It seems to me to be extremely dangerous to put into the hands of a prosecuting board the power to decide whether a prosecution shall proceed. We have always hitherto, or, anyway, until we recently started our journey into the corporate State, left in the hands of some independent person, such as the Attorney-General or the Director of Public Prosecutions, the decision whether or not a criminal prosecution should be permitted in a particular case. That has been done for the very good reason that there is always the danger that a prosecuting body may for some irregular, or even for some corrupt motive in some servant of the body, refuse to prosecute in one case while prosecuting in another. I am not suggesting that the Spindles Board is likely to be corrupt, but we have always guarded against that danger. In this Amendment we find the Spindles Board put in the position of both prosecutor and judge to decide whether the prosecution shall take place or not. I am certain that the Attorney-General cannot justify such a procedure. He has brought forward no argument for this entirely new method of regulating our criminal justice—because this deals with a criminal offence—

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: On a point of Order. I am not minimising the importance of the point which the hon.


and learned Gentleman is now raising, but it is a very wide point, and I submit that it is not relevant to this Amendment or to this series of Amendments. It was not raised, I think, upstairs, and I suggest that it is not raised by this Amendment. The Bill as unamended gives complete control to the Spindles Board over all proceedings. The only effect of the Amendments would be to limit the control to offences under certain Sections, and the point that I want to submit to you, Mr. Speaker, is whether Amendments limiting the control given by the Bill raise the general question whether such control is desirable or not.

Sir S. CRIPPS: May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that the Government themselves have an Amendment to exclude from Clause 18 the general power to which I understand the Attorney-General refers, and that, if that general power be excluded, it will only be by virtue of the insertion of these Amendments that the power will arise at all under the Bill. Therefore, I submit that I am in order in raising the question.

Mr. SPEAKER: Without going into the question of law, I think that what the hon. and learned Gentleman said in dealing with this question was in order.

Sir S. CRIPPS: The Attorney-General will observe—I say this for his sake, because I notice that he has not observed it—that the subsequent Amendment to Subsection (2) of Clause 18, unless it be withdrawn, will remove from the Bill the right of the Spindles Board to control the bringing or not bringing of prosecutions. The Attorney-General is proposing to reinsert the power in two Sections, so as to apply the power to those two Sections but not to the other Section. I am opposing the insertion of that power. I shall gladly support its elimination from Clause 18, but I oppose its insertion back into the other two Clauses. The Attorney-General says that this point was not raised upstairs, but it may, perhaps, be none the worse for that. It is a very serious point indeed. Surely, when we are setting up these corporations such as the Spindles Board, we must be extremely careful that we set them up in circumstances which guard most rigidly the rights of the individuals who will come under their powers. It has always been the practice in this country to guard the

rights of individuals in relation to criminal prosecutions, if they are going to be limited in any way, not by putting into the hands of the prosecutor the right to say whether a prosecution shall or shall not proceed in a particular case—not merely his own prosecution, but generally whether there shall be a prosecution—but by putting that right into the hands of some impartial authority like the Attorney-General himself. I am quite in favour of having some control provided for in the Bill, so that any odd discontented person cannot bring a prosecution in such cases, but surely it is better to do that by the well recognised method of having an impartial authority to make the decision. I hope that the Attorney-General will reconsider this matter and will deal with it in another way than that which he now proposes.

7.22 p.m.

Mr. PETHERICK: This matter was discussed in Committee, and, as a result of various representations that were made to the President of the Board of Trade and the Parliamentary Secretary, certain Amendments were placed on the Order Paper. I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite can be very familiar with the terms of the Bill, because, under the new Amendments, prosecutions can only be at the instance of the Spindles Board, when the offences in question are offences against the Spindles Board only. The offences under Clauses 14 and 15 are those of not making returns and statistics to the Spindles Board—

Sir S. CRIPPS: That is not an offence against the Spindles Board; it is an offence against the Act of Parliament, that is to say, an offence against the public.

Mr. PETHERICK: I agree, but the Spindles Board is being set up by Act of Parliament, and the aggrieved party in the first instance is the Spindles Board. Therefore it seems reasonable, as no party is immediately aggrieved except the Spindles Board, to give the instance of prosecution to the Spindles Board in these two Clauses. It might be out of order to discuss Clause 16 now, but perhaps I may be allowed to refer to it. That Clause deals with wider infringements of the Act, and it is certainly right that there the power should be taken out of the hands of the Spindles


Board, and that prosecutions under the Act should be conducted in the ordinary way. I hope the Attorney-General will adhere to these Amendments, and will not accept the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I would ask the Attorney-General to reconsider this matter. Scotland is dealt with differently. This Clause only applies to England. I understand from the Bill that prosecutions in Scotland will take place under the Procurateur Fiscal, for whom the Lord Advocate is responsible in this House. In Scotland, therefore, every prosecution will be a public prosecution, and for the initial procedure the Lord Advocate will be responsible in this House. I would ask the House to note the difference. A man in England can be prosecuted, possibly for a petty offence, and, while he is awaiting the charge, his business must be affected. If that were done by the Public Prosecutor in Scotland, and were done wrongly, we could impeach him here. That must inevitably make the Lord Advocate act with a great deal of caution in such matters. In England, however, there is no public control over what might well be a serious matter to a, business man. The one safeguard in these matters is that there should be some public control, and the mere knowledge that that exists, even though it may never be used, is sufficient to make people use discretion and step warily in any prosecutions that they may bring. There is a fair amount of substance in this matter, and I trust the Government will try to make some public body responsible for these prosecutions, and to make the law of Scotland and England more or less alike. In Scotland I want this power to be retained in the hands of the Public Prosecutor.

7.29 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I can only speak again by the leave of the House. My right hon. Friend has been impressed by the arguments which have been put before the House. As has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), the position in Scotland under the Bill is different from what it is in England. The House will appreciate that these Amendments were put down to meet a different point,

namely, the one which was raised in Committee. As my hon. Friend the Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick) has pointed out, the offences in respect of which the Amendments would give the Spindles Board this power are such offences as failing to make returns to the board and so on. However, my right hon. Friend authorises me to say that he will reconsider this matter, with a view, possibly, to inserting the Board of Trade. The House will not expect me to give a final decision on behalf of my right hon. Friend at this time, but we propose not to proceed with the first two Amendments, but to move the third, which omits the Spindles Board, and to consider providing for another control, say by the Board of Trade, in respect of offences under Clauses 14 and 15. Accordingly, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 16.—(Restrictions on disclosing information obtained under Act.)

7.30 p.m.

Mr. PETHERICK: I beg to move, in page 15, line 43, after "Act," to insert: "or uses such information for his financial advantage."
As the Clause stands, there are penalties for disclosing information which may be obtained under the Act with, of course, particular reference to the Spindles Board. It is obvious that members of the Spindles Board will have access to most valuable information and I suppose, if they were not the right kind of people, they might not only disclose it but, what is even more dangerous, use it to their own financial advantage. The object of the Amendment is to make it an offence to make money out of this information which these members of the board and others operating under the Act may possibly discover. In Committee the Parliamentary Secretary seemed to suggest that it was most improper to put in words of this kind because it would be an insult directed against this nebulous body, which is not yet set up. He suggested that the Amendment cast some sort of slur on people whom we would not wish to disparage. I cannot accept that suggestion at all. If there is any question of casting a slur, what about Members of Parliament? In the second section of the Schedule it is laid down, in rather equivocal language and ill-


drafted words, that a Member of Parliament may not be a member of the Spindles Board. The reason that was put in, presumably, was that they should not be swayed by motives by which one would not wish them to be swayed.
If it is proper for a Member of Parliament to be excluded from membership of the Spindles Board, is it not far more proper to take every possible precaution to prevent members of the Spindles Board or others from disclosing or profiting by information that they may possibly obtain under the Act? There is one way in which they might act improperly. It might be that an employé of the Spindles Board, in examining the accounts of various companies, might find that a certain company was earning extremely good profits, and he might think that shares in that company were a very good buy. It is to deal with that sort of case that we are proposing to insert these words. I do not think it is sufficient for the President of the Board of Trade to say that in every circumstance the people he will appoint are going to be high-minded and excellent people. I am sure they will be but, all the same, when we are setting up a board of this kind it is advisable to take every precaution against malpractices.

7.35 p.m.

Mr. REMER: I beg to second the Amendment, which I regard as the most important that you, Sir, have selected. I believe that in the cotton industry we may have developments of invention and research which should not be disclosed by some officer of the Spindles Board. The argument used against us upstairs was the creation of a new offence. There was an unholy coalition between the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) and the Parliamentary Secretary. I do not like putting unnecessary words into Acts of Parliament. I know that it has caused trouble, but, knowing that I am speaking to people who have knowledge of the police courts, as the Parliamentary Secretary and the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne have, I do not think there is very much objection to putting into an Act of Parliament a new offence. The knowledge that it is in the Act of Parliament might deter a person from doing something that is improper.

7.39 p.m.

Mr. SILVERMAN: I intervene not because I want to continue an alliance, although I accept from the hon. Member that he is an authority on unholy alliances, especially in connection with this Measure. I did not object to this in Committee on the ground that it created a new offence. I have not the slightest objection to creating new offences. I hope in the course of this Parliament, and certainly in subsequent Parliaments under the control of a majority of another colour, a great man, new offences will be created, but when they are created they ought to be stated in precise terms and they ought to be capable of proof. My objection is not that this creates a new offence, although I am at one with the hon. Member in wanting to prevent that or any other kind of corruption, or the use of knowledge obtained in an official capacity for private, individual, personal advantage. If I thought the Amendment would have that effect I would gladly support it. But I suggest that it does not have that effect. It seems to me that a criminal offence described as this one is would be an offence in respect of which it would be for ever and eternally impossible to obtain a conviction.

Mr. PETHERICK: Is it not also difficult to obtain convictions under the Local Government Acts?

Mr. SILVERMAN: There ought not to be any difficulty whatever, because the offences are precise and specific, and are defined. Here it is not precise. You could not call an accused person as a witness and cross-examine him to find out what was in his mind. You would have to prove by external evidence, quite apart from any admission that you could get from him, what was in his mind. Anyone with any experience of the operation of the criminal law knows that you could never hope to prove your case. You have to prove something that is unknowable—the state of a man's mind at a particular time—without being able to get from him any evidence as to the state of his mind. It would be impossible to ask the Court to convict. You could not prove certain offences in that way beyond all reasonable doubt and this, like all other criminal offences, would have to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. If that criticism is sound, the object that


you have in view would be completely defeated, because nothing is more conducive to the commission of an offence than a general belief in the public mind that you can never be caught and convicted. It would be very much better not to create the offence at all than to create it in such a form of words as to produce either no prosecutions at all or a crop of unsuccessful prosecutions.

7.43 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Every one must sympathise with the object that the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment have in view, but under the Clause as it stands any disclosure of information is an offence. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Relater) said that one of his objects was that information should not be disclosed. That object is already attained as the Bill stands. That means that the use that the Amendment contemplates is a use in which information is not disclosed, that is, that there is no passing on of the information from the person committing the offence to anyone outside. I think, therefore, that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) is accurate when he says that, looking at the Amendment and the Bill, the crime consists in something that has gone on in the man's mind—a use that he has made in his own mind and a motive known only to himself—and it would therefore be almost impossible to prove it in a court of justice. I think it is very undesirable that we should create an offence only capable of proof in a very small number of cases.
I can imagine cases in which it might be possible to prove the use by a person of information to his financial advantage, but I can imagine many cases in which proof of the kind required would be quite impossible. We would be creating an offence which depended on what had taken place in a man's mind, and I hesitate to think of the remarks which might be made by some of His Majesty's judges when confronted with an indictment based on the use made of certain information in a man's own mind. While sympathising with the object of the Amendment, having given the matter careful consideration, we must ask the House to resist the Amendment, and I would even suggest to my hon. Friends that they might withdraw it.

Mr. PETHERICK: While rather unwilling to withdraw the Amendment I do not think it raises a question of principle and I do not propose to press it. I wish to put one point to my hon. and learned Friend. There was a case the other day in which certain people were prosecuted for offences connected with transactions in pepper. It was, I think, proved that a prospectus had been issued which turned out to be false but, in order to obtain a conviction, it was also necessary to prove that the defendants knew of and had in mind certain commitments in pepper. Is not that case similar to the kind of case we are considering and if not in what lies the distinction?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: That is quite a different kind of case. In many criminal prosecutions it is necessary to prove knowledge. The case which the hon. Member has in mind in this Amendment however would be a case in which the gist of the offence consisted of the use made of the knowledge. In the case to which he referred just now the jury had to be satisfied that a particular document was false, and my hon. Friend may be right in saying that in coming to their conclusion they had to be satisfied as to whether certain facts were known to the defendants or not. That is so in many criminal prosecutions, but there is no parallel between a case of that kind and a case in which, as I say, the gist of the offence consists of the use made of the knowledge by a man in his own mind.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSID 18.—(Provisions as to criminal offences.)

Amendment made: In page 16, line 20, leave out Sub-section (2).—[The Attorney-General.]

CLAUSE 21.—(Interpretation.)

Amendment made: In page 17, line 17, leave out "an."—[Dr. Burgin.]

7.50 p.m.

Mr. PETHERICK: I beg to move, in page 17, line 20, to leave out lines 20 to 26.
It may be convenient to consider at the same time with the three Amendments which follow this on the Paper—in line 23, to leave out "or artificial fibre"; in line 24, to leave out "comprising" and insert "containing" and in line 24, to


leave out from "fibre" to the end of line 26. This is admittedly an extreme Amendment and I have put it down in the hope of being allowed to raise a point which is very similar to a point of Order. The Preamble describes the Bill as a Bill to
provide for the elimination of redundant spinning machinery in cotton mills.
The interpretation Clause, as at present drafted, describes a cotton mill as any premises used for the production of cotton yarn or artificial yarn. Is it in order to say, in the long Title that a Bill is to deal with a specific industry and then in the interpretation Clause to widen the range of the Bill and make it apply, not only to the specific industry but to other industries?

Mr. SPEAKER: It appears to me that according to the Preamble the Bill is meant to deal with the cotton industry, but I understand that artificial silk is made of cotton and, therefore, that artificial fibre is included in the description contained in the Preamble to the Bill.

Mr. MARKHAM: Does it also cover the use of wool and mixtures of cotton wool? Would they also be included in the Bill?

Mr. SPEAKER: I should think that they also would be included.

Mr. PETHERICK: I will proceed with my Amendment for the purpose of having a general discussion on the matter. Only yesterday a number of organisations which have not previously taken a great interest in this Bill, because it was referred to as a Cotton Spinning Industry Bill, suddenly began to fear that their interests would be directly affected by it. I was asked by an hon. Friend to put down these Amendments, the object of which is to confine the interpretation of "cotton mills" to the cotton spinning industry and if the Parliamentary Secretary can give us an assurance that the Bill applies only to the cotton spinning industry and not, for instance, to artificial silk factories the alarm felt by those organisations will be somewhat allayed. As it is, it seems to me that, unless these Amendments are accepted, the expression "cotton mill" applies not only to the production of single yarn cotton fibre but also to the production of artificial fibre

which may have no cotton in it. I hope the hon. Gentleman will either accept the Amendments or give us such an assurance as I have indicated.

7.55 p.m.

Mr. SPENS: I beg to second the Amendment.
The definition of "cotton mill" in the Bill reads:
Premises used or appropriated for use for the production of single yarn from cotton fibre or artificial fibre.
I pause there for a moment. It has been my fortune or misfortune to try to give in courts of law a proper definition of the manufacture of artificial silk and I know of no more apt group of words for that purpose than:
the production of single yarn from artificial fibre.
That is a definition of what is done in every artificial silk factory in this country. Artificial silk, in many cases, is made from wood pulp and no cotton of any sort enters into it. The pulp comes out of a jet in the form of a glutinous fibre and is spun into what is called artificial silk or thread. It is true that in many artificial silk factories there is machinery capable of being used to spin cotton fibre and machinery capable of being used to spin a mixture partly of cotton, partly of artificial fibre and partly of worsted. If any artificial silk factory does spin cotton or a mixture in which cotton forms a part, it is obvious that such a factory should be within the Bill but most of them have nothing to gain by spinning and as far as I know at present never dream of spinning anythig except pure artificial fibre.
I cannot believe that so long as these factories confine themselves to spinning what I may call, rather inaccurately and loosely, pure artificial silk, that is pure artificial fibre, it was ever intended that they should come within the Bill. None the less, attention having been called to the matter, it seems to me that this definition of "cotton mill" would include artificial silk works which are doing nothing but spinning the pure artificial fibre. Those engaged in what I may call the pure artificial silk trade are surprised that this should be so and believe that it is not intended. If the Amendments are accepted, every factory which spins pure artificial silk and nothing but artificial silk will be ex-


cluded, but any factory which combines with the spinning of artificial silk any cotton or worsted or other mixture will come within the Bill. From the moment it introduces into its artificial silk spinning any cotton or worsted mixture, it will come within the provisions of the Bill and will have to pay the levy. Owing to the haste in which the Amendments have to be prepared they may not be drawn in the most artistic possible manner but they have been put down in order to draw the attention of the Government to this point.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. MARKHAM: I support the Amendments, not in the hope that they will be accepted, but in the hope of getting a statement from the Minister as to the scope of the Bill. The Mover of the Amendment has pointed out that it was understood that the Bill was originally designed to meet the need of the Lancashire cotton trade, but under this Clause, and particularly under the part of the Clause covered by the Amendments, it is feared that firms will be affected which do not in any way compete in the cotton yarn market, and that it may include any mixture of cotton and wool. I have in mind a factory which is not in my constituency, and therefore I cannot be accused of log-rolling by mentioning it. I refer to Messrs. Hollins, in Nottingham, who produce the Viyella fabric. The majority of the output of the spindles of this firm is pure wool, and yet, although it is a pure wool product, it would come under the scope of the Bill, and they would have to pay the levy. Of the remainder of the product of this firm, which I am quoting only as an example, two-thirds of the output consists of more than 50 per cent. of pure wool. I understand that under this Clause all those firms will come under the scope of the Bill, and I submit that what is really needed is a definition of a cotton mill that will exclude those mills spinning with yarns that include wool.

8.2 p.m.

Dr. BURGIN: I want first to deal with the question of artificial silk, because I gather that these Amendments have been put down, not for any assumed virtue in their words, but rather to raise the question, in order that hon. Members may obtain from the Government some definition of what is intended to be covered

by the definition of a cotton mill. Taking the Amendments by themselves, the proposal to leave out the definition of a cotton mill is one which would lead to confusion. I would like rather to deal with the broad question. Is artificial silk included within the ambit of the Bill at all? Let me say to the hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens), in regard to his new definition of pure artificial silk, that pure artificial silk is outside the Bill altogether, because it is not spun on mule or ring spindles.

Mr. SPENS: But—

Dr. BURGIN: Let me give my explanation and then be cross-examined on it. Pure artificial silk is outside the Bill, because it is not spun on ring or mule spindles, but, of course, is normally the production of continuous filament rayon yarn by the process of extrusion. That is the normal process. As regards staple fibre, artificial silk companies will not come within the scope of the Bill unless, in addition to producing the fibre, they spin it into yarn on ordinary cotton spinning machinery. Immediately they do spin the fibre into yarn on ordinary cotton spinning machinery and enter on the operations which are undertaken by cotton spinners, they then come within the Bill. If artificial silk concerns engage in those operations which are normally undertaken by cotton spinners on ring or mule spindles, they will then be carrying out operations which will be the same as cotton spinners are conducting, and as cotton spinners will have to pay the levy, they also will pay the levy in respect of that machinery. I hope that that makes the matter clear. That is the explanation of what the Bill is intended to do, and I can only give that explanation to the House and ask them to resist the Amendments which were put down by the three hon. Members.
I will, of course, in view of the manner in which these Amendments have been moved, give consideration to the matter between now and the Bill reaching its final stages in another place. On the question raised by the hon. Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Markham) as to the machinery in Messrs. Hollins' factory, and as to the precise nature of Viyella yarn, that again is a matter on which I must make inquiries, because, as I apprehend it, the answer to his question will


depend on the nature of the machinery that is used for the spinning process—not so much on the mixture itself as on the machinery upon which the operation is carried out. There again I would like to make inquiries, and I invite the House in the meantime to allow the Bill to proceed in its present form.

Mr. MARKHAM: It is agreed that the Hollins yarn is of cotton type, but it would have to be especially adapted to be used as cotton yarn, and I would like an assurance that firms of this kind shall have some impartial board, or perhaps a Minister himself, to go into these questions and to decide fairly and squarely whether these firms are under the Bill or not.

Dr. BURGIN: I can only speak again by leave of the House, but I will ask the hon. Member whether he knows whether the machinery in question is ring or mule spindle machinery. If it is, then I think his works come within the Bill as at present framed. If there is some difference in the machinery, then it is another matter, but I agree that the point which has been raised, rather late in the day, is one that may well be inquired into, and I undertake to make that inquiry and to look into the matter. In the meantime I ask that we may be allowed to proceed with the Bill.

8.7 p.m.

Mr. CLYNES: I bring only the mind of a layman to these matters, but, as one who worked in a cotton mill for many years and who has kept more or less in touch with the industry since and has had a personal acquaintance with the different fibres and machines, mules and rings and so on, I can only say that, so far as language is capable of clearly laying down the difference as between one and the other, the Parliamentary Secretary has managed to do it. Again, I say, I speak only as a layman, and it may be that hereafter certain legal matters will have to be settled in the courts or in some other way, but in the meantime those of us who have only the layman's mind to bring to bear on these matters must accept the suggestion of the Parliamentary Secretary.

8.8 p.m.

Mr. SPENS: Before leaving this subject, I would like to know what the

expression "or artificial fibre" means in relation to cotton. I have never heard of a cotton yarn which is made solely from an artificial fibre. It may very well be my ignorance, but it is those words "or artificial fibre" in the definition Clause which have caused anxiety in the minds of those engaged in artificial silk which is partly made from an artificial fibre. If the Parliamentary Secretary would consider whether it is not possible to review those words before the Bill becomes law, I am sure it would make a great deal of difference in the minds of those engaged in artificial silk manufacture.

Dr. BURGIN: I think those words can be included in the review which I have promised to make. Beyond that, I would not like to go at this stage.

8.9 p.m.

Mr. PETHERICK: Before asking leave to withdraw the Amendment, I would like to say that there was one thing that alarmed me in what the Parliamentary Secretary said. If I followed him through the maze of technicalities and legal language correctly, he indicated that it was not really the stuff that you were spinning, but the machinery, which was the governing factor. If, in fact, it was cotton-spinning machinery, then what that cotton-spinning machinery was spinning came under the Bill, but, on the other hand, if the converse was the case, it was not included in the definition. I hope he will consider that, because this Bill definitely deals with redundant cotton spindles, with too much machinery in the cotton-spinning industry, and is not intended to deal with artificial silk or other forms of produce. I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.11 p.m.

Dr. BURGIN: I beg to move, in page 17, line 24, to leave out from "or," to the end of line 26, and to insert:
comprising staple rayon fibre or other artificial fibre, and 'cotton-spinning' means the production of single yarn as aforesaid.
These are words intended to amplify the definition.
Amendment agreed to.

SCHEDULE.—(Constitution, Remuneration, Quorum, Proceedings, Incidental Functions and Winding-up of the Spindles Board.)

8.12 p.m.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I beg to move, in page 19, line 11, at the end, to insert:
or is either a cotton spinner or a director, officer or servant of an undertaking carrying on the business of a cotton mill.
During the debates in the Standing Committee the feeling was expressed in many quarters that the members of the Spindles Board should not be engaged in the cotton spinning industry, and it was felt that cotton spinners dealing with the Spindles Board should not be asked to discuss their affairs with persons to whom it might be embarrassing to disclose the state of their production. It is with the object of providing safeguards against this, that I move this Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

8.13 p.m.

Mr. CLYNES: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
I am entitled, I think, to say, in approaching the Third Reading of this Bill, that we on this side have not sought to obstruct the purpose of the Government in seeking by legislation to assist the industry, and that we have not been inspired by any wrecking motives in the few Amendments which we have put on the Order Paper and the several speeches which we have made. We felt that this Bill proceeded upon mistaken lines in that it admittedly dealt with only one section of the industry, and that all sections of the industry are in tlmost equal parts feeling the burden. The carding section, the spinning section, the weaving section, the finishing section, and the selling section, as well as the innumerable different interests that exist within those five sections, are in equal parts feeling the very heavy burden of the present cotton trade depression, and as that burden has existed now for many years, its weight has become heavier as time has gone on. Accordingly, we objected to piecemeal efforts at finding

a solution of the present difficulties, and we were entitled to say that during the years when the late Government had ample opportunity, with an unprecedented majority, to take any steps which intelligence and necessity might have dictated, they missed a great opportunity of doing something to lift the Lancashire trade on to its feet.
I had the privilege when the Labour Government was in office in 1929 of doing something on this subject, and presided over a committee which, after some months of inquiry, presented its report. That report submitted substantially the point which I am making, that it is an industry which has different sections and groupings, which to a great extent live upon each other. That has been the necessity. I do not blame the several sections of men and women for being interested in their own particular industry, but one has had to sell to the other, and the other has had to sell to the next, until finally the finished article has found its way on to the market. In our view it would be far better to take a much more comprehensive step along the road towards finding a remedy than this piecemeal proposal in the Bill which is now before the House for the Third Reading. The assistance to be given to the industry is to be by levy—less by organisation and mainly by a levy. That levy in itself will be an additional burden upon many sections of the industry. In an industry where the margin of advantage has for a long time been so narrow, and where some people have not been able to enjoy any margin at all, the slightest addition to the burden will be very severely felt. It is often said that it is the last straw which breaks the camel's back. This may well be an instance where the industry itself, in many cases, will find it a real burden in having to pay the levy.
What is the levy to do? It is to seek to assist the trade by extinguishing part. of it. That is a course which has not been taken to assist any other industry. Rationalisation of a kind has proceeded on voluntary lines or by arrangements between different firms, but no legislation has so far been passed quite on the lines of this Bill. It is to exact from the industry a charge in order that certain of the less successful, or non-successful parts of the trade, shall get recompense for closing their doors altogether. It really means the extinguishing of part of the


industry in the hope of saving the remainder. That substantially is the purpose of the Bill. The least we are entitled to say under that head is that results must be regarded as purely speculation. With good luck and good fortune, with things going in the right way, this Bill may do some good, but you cannot get further than "may." No one can say it will. There is a complete absence of any certainty about the whole Bill, and the results that may accrue from the working of the Measure in the course of the next few years. This timid step was taken because at length the Government have had to accept the view of those who were daily sinking in this condition of depression that something had to be done, and this is the utmost that the Government have had courage enought to attempt. We shall have to see how far this something can produce results. There is only one consolation that we on this side can feel. Should this course, admittedly taken in an experimental sense, be more or less successful, something more will have to be done in respect to the other parts of the industry.
I do not know what the weaving section will shortly do as a result of dearer yarn, because the whole purpose of the Bill will have failed unless the yarn commands a better price. It is the first time that a Bill has been introduced into this House avowedly for the purpose of making dearer the material made in one section of the industry. Unless yarn is made dearer, it will fail in this behalf in relation to the spinner. When the yarn comes from the spinner to the weaver, the weaver will shoulder an additional burden by paying more for the yarn. As the cloth passes on ifs way to the market, it will have an added burden, which must, therefore, finally be paid for at a higher rate by the general body of consumers.
I fail to understand how these steps are ultimately to assist the Lancashire cotton trade in its competition against competitors who can even now offer a similar article at a cheaper rate. Therefore, this Measure is not likely to give to the industry, or to any one section of it, precisely the kind of assistance it requires, namely, the assistance to enable the industry to produce an article at a cheaper rate and keep competitors out of a market which so far they have been able to win from us. When years ago we were

engaged in other pursuits Japan particularly, which was free from the entanglements of the Great War with which we were concerned, got a foothold in our markets, particularly in the greatest of all our markets in relation to cotton goods, that of India. We know that in India the people are now no richer than they were. Their purses are as slender as ever, and their buying power is still very low, and if we offer them a dearer article they will be no better off, and I fear that the Japanese cotton spinners and employers will carry on under the advantage which they have so far acquired.
I will indicate the reasons why we are entitled to vote against this Bill on the Third Reading. The levy will finally be used to compensate those who have to close their doors. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman will question that. It may be called purchase money or whatever you like, but it really is a great consolation for those who find that their spindles are redundant and cannot be put to use, to know that they can be paid for closing down their works and that in some form they will thereby be very substantially compensated. But not so the workman affected by the closing down of the mill. He is thrown on to the unemployment market, or, if not, he knows that if his mill or part of it is closed down he has a less chance of getting back to the kind of job he formerly held.
We, therefore, argue that, just as mill-owners for proprietary reasons shall be compensated out of the levy money, so also the displaced spinner should receive some recompense for being placed under a condition of greater handicap, with regard to unemployment, than ever before. The answer to us is that he has his unemployment benefit, but we reply to that and say, "As far as he has the prospect of unemployment benefit, he has contributed for such benefit." It is a sum of money totally different from that which the employer is to receive, and in addition to his unemployment pay, the worker ought to receive from the fund created by the levy some even slight recompense for the greater handicap under which he is put with regard to his chances of finding future employment.
A further reason why we object to the Bill is that the Government are not applying to this industry, to capitalists, precisely the same reason as they enforce


upon trade unionists in regard to the payment of a levy. I do not think the House will object to our going back to 1927 when a law was passed which said to the trade unions: "You may proceed to a ballot and if the ballot by majority settles that your members shall pay a levy for a political purpose, you may still not compel them to pay by virtue of that majority; you must make each man individually contract in, even after the democratic decision of the ballot has settled that that course should be taken." The House will agree, and certainly I invite anyone to dispute my statement, that the trade unions have been vindictively singled out for treatment for nothing better than a spiteful party reason, that has been applied to no other organisation or institution in the country.
We accept, for good or ill, in this country, the civilised, democratic and proper practice of settling our affairs by majority rule. It may not always be the wisest rule but, taking the law of averages, we accept it as the best rule, and it is good enough for us. What the institution may be, whether it be a company, a business, a church, a chapel or this House of Commons, everything is settled by the rule of the majority. Those who are in the minority try to make themselves into the majority as soon as they can. In the meantime minorities must submit and must agree to whatever the majority may decide. Therefore, we have said in Committee on this Bill that just as individual trade unionists to achieve a certain end are required by law to contract in for the payment of an individual levy, so should each individual employer who wants to pay this levy to assist his trade be made individually to contract in, and thereby be put exactly upon the same footing as the trade unionists. This is not asking for a privilege. It is merely demanding equality as between the treatment meted out to property and the treatment meted out to trade unions.
Let me repeat two questions which have been addressed twice from this side of the House to the right hon. Gentleman but which so far he has not answered. I think we are entitled to an answer. It may be that he does not desire to have his speeches quoted as though they were the terms of a Statute. We know well enough that it is not what we say in this House that matters when a law is passed,

but it is what the law itself says. Meantime, in the course of Debate we are entitled to ask for a little guidance, and for some indication of the Government's mind on matters of outstanding importance. This is one of them. The only way in which the organised worker can come into this matter is through the medium of the Advisory Committee. One representative of organised labour in the textile industry can sit on that Committee, with five more.
Is that Committee to have a chairman, not merely a person who will preside over meetings when they are assembled, but a man of their own choosing, of their own election, who will be recognised as the chairman of that consultative or Advisory Committee, who will be possessed of certain rights initiation, including the right of approach to the Spindles Board? The Bill says that the Spindles Board may approach the Advisory Committee, but it does not indicate that the Advisory Committee may approach the Spindles Board. If there is to be freedom of contact and some sense of being on an equal footing there ought to be a recognised chairman who will have some sense of possessing the right to initiate movements himself, and to take a step towards approaching the larger and more powerful body known as the Spindles Board.
As an old-time cotton operative, I can say as my last word that I do not want this Measure to fail. It will be to me a source of the greatest joy if it is a great success, especially because we have the assurance that later on its success would encourage the Government to follow upon similar if not on even better lines for the improvement of the Lancashire cotton industry.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. PETHERICK: I will not delay the House long, because I have talked enough already on the Bill, but I should like to say a few words in the final stage. The reason why I have been opposing the Bill in Committee is on a question of principle. I entirely agree with and support the concluding words of the right hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes). I do not think that the Bill will do a great deal of good, but I hope that it will not do any harm to speak of. What I have been alarmed about is a very broad question of principle, and that is the direction in which the governmental


policy of this country is trending, as shown by the Bill which we are now sending to another place.
May I first answer one or two points which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting has put forward? His main point, that of compensation for displaced workers, is one for which we have a considerable degree of sympathy, but those of us who take up a different view should not be accused of having no sympathy with the workers and of throwing in our lot with the employers. Let me give one reason why I think compensation for the worker would not be possible. It could be confined only to workmen who are thrust out of the open mills and not out of the closed ones. The question of unemployment benefit being sufficient is not an adequate argument, although it is an argument that might be used. The real difficulty in regard to paying compensation is the difficulty of assessment. On what are you going to base any form of compensation? Are you going to base it on past wages?

Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): I must remind the hon. Member that we are now on the Third Reading. The right hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) was entitled to state that as a reason for objecting to the Bill, but we must not develop an argument upon it.

Mr. PETHERICK: I accept your correction. I am afraid that I was led away by some of the observations put forward by the right hon. Member for Platting. This Measure is undoubtedly one of planning. Planning may well be described as Socialism in mittens. The palm of the hand genteelly covered, but the clutching fingers remain at large. We have here, brought forward by the Government, a bill which they hope will be of great benefit to the cotton spinning industry, but it contains a most dangerous principle from my point of view. These measures in which the Government provide the frame and the industry paint in the picture, such as we have seen in regard to the Agricultural Marketing Acts, contain a dangerous principle.
I am not prepared to shut out its use entirely, but we should be very careful before we admit it, and certainly before we encourage its general adoption. There

is a case in which it is admissible to give a majority in an industry power to coerce a minority—that is really what happens in this case—but certain vital conditions should be fulfilled before we do so. In the first place, we should do it only as a last resort, when the industry has utterly failed to find its own salvation through normal means. Secondly, the scheme must be a sound one. The third condition is that the majority of those who vote in favour of a scheme should be overwhelming, something in the nature of 85 per cent. Under the Agricultural Marketing Acts the minimum to which the vote has fallen is about 84 per cent., and that is about the percentage which we should admit in a case of this kind. The fourth condition, which is perhaps the most vital of all, is that the minority who are not in favour of the scheme being imposed should, as far as it is possible to ascertain, consist only of the non-co-operative, tiresome and helpless elements, and must not include the most efficient or some of the most efficient members of the trade. I am not at all satisfied that these conditions have been fulfilled in this Bill.
I did not catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, on Second Reading, and came to the conclusion that I would not vote at all. I did not want to support the Government in the Measure and was reluctant to vote against it without saying why. To-night I am proposing to vote against the Third Reading, for one reason only. The Bill has been very materially improved during the Committee and Report stages. The President of the Board of Trade and his colleagues have met us in many ways, for which I am grateful, but the central fact remains that we are imposing on an industry, against the wishes of a very important, powerful and in many cases efficient minority, a scheme which the majority, and a small one, believes will be for the benefit of the industry. That is the reason why I am going into the Lobby against the Third Reading of the Bill. We must be careful about introducing any further Measures of this nature. I urge the Government, the President of the Board of Trade and the Prime Minister, that if any further Measures of this nature are brought forward they will see that the conditions which I have mentioned, which I think will be approved by all reasonable sup-


porters of the National Government, are fulfilled before a scheme is imposed upon an industry from above against the wishes of a minority. An industry should always be given an opportunity of voting and deciding for itself. Like the right hon. Member for Platting I hope the Bill, which I dislike, may be of benefit to the cotton spinning industry, but I hope it is not the forerunner of other Measures involving principles which may endanger the whole stability of the industrial situation in this country.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. HOLD SWORTH: Hon. Members of the Labour party must be very amused at the different defences which are advanced for getting away from the principles of private enterprise. They show an absolute inconsistency. The only thing that I stand for is a fair deal, free competition and no favour. That is an attitude which can be understood, but one which cannot be understood is that which asks for a particular privilege. Hon. Members of the Labour party believe in a certain theory. I think they are wrong. Hon. Members opposite are equally wrong when they want the best of both worlds. The Bill marks a new era in the industrial history of this country. It is suggested that we started a Fascist State with the many Agricultural Marketing Bills, but this Bill marks a new era as far as our industrial structure is concerned.
The question is whether the President of the Board of Trade is prepared to say to an industry, "Make up your minds what you want, and I am prepared to put it into a Bill and present it to Parliament." I am not prepared to accept that position. I do not think any industry ought to be able to come to Parliament and say, "This is what we want." All legislation should have regard not only to a particular industry but to the people of the country. It is not right to allow an industry, as we do by this Bill, to come along with a scheme and, because they say the scheme will do them the most good at the present time, expect Parliament to accept it. We have to look to the industrial interests of the country as a whole, and to the interests of the people as a whole. The levy which we are imposing is imposed upon the inefficient and efficient alike. I am not going to suggest that all the people who

are clamouring for this Bill are inefficient. I do not make that charge; it would not be true. But it is true to say that there is a minority—we have never been able to get the exact figures—which says to this House, "Please leave us alone; we are quite content to rely upon our own efforts. We can run our business efficiently and at a profit." for the first time in the history of this country we have said, "no," to that request. As I said on the Second Reading of this Bill, I believe industry in this country has been built up by the initiative and private enterprise of individuals, and for the first time we are saying to the individual, "No, you shall not; you shall pay into a fund whether you are willing or unwilling."
I believe, moreover, that the way in which the ballot was taken was not altogether satisfactory. I think the House is still dissatisfied with not knowing exactly what percentage of the people possessing spindles is in favour of the Bill, and what percentage is against it. I have never been convinced by the President of the Board of Trade or by the Parliamentary Secretary as to the reasons why they should have opposed a further ballot. I still think there would be a great deal more satisfaction not only in the industry but in this House if there were a further ballot. I am astounded by the number of hon. Members who say to me, "We do not like this Bill, and we do not like the principles enunciated in it, but what have we to do?" When the bell rings, hon. Members opposite will troop into the Division Lobby in favour of the Bill, and among them there will be any number who do not believe in it. Let there be no mistake about that. I would still ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he thinks it is too late to reconsider this matter.
There is another point I would like to make. I believe this Bill is an encouragement to certain types of industry—and I could name them if I wished to do so—which are at the moment going through as terrible times as Lancashire, to come to this House and ask for Bills to enable them to enjoy a monopoly. I have had suggestions put to me with regard to industries other than the one with which we are dealing to-night. This Bill will set an example to different industries to ask this House


for particular favours. During the past five years we have done the same thing in the case of other industries. It was done in the case of transport, and hon. Members who are opposing this Bill now voted for it then. In that case we said to a young fellow who might have saved £400 or £500, "No, you may only start in this business by getting a licence, and those who are already in the business will have the privilege of opposing your application for a licence."
We did the same thing in the potato industry. At a certain date there was a certain acreage under potatoes, and then we said, "Thou shalt not grow any more." Now we are doing the same thing in the cotton industry. We adopt the principle that however industrious a man may be, however much he may be prepared to put money into a new industry and try to work out a new invention, however much he may be prepared to set an example in a certain area as to how a thing should be done, he shall not be able to do it unless he is prepared, if setting up a mill of 100,000 spindles, for instance, to pay £488 per annum before being allowed to do so.
I want the House to recognise the kind of principle it is setting up. I do not judge this Bill merely by its effects upon the cotton spinning industry. Private enterprise is being given away bit by bit every hour. I am sometimes astounded as to why hon. Members on these benches oppose this sort of Measure. They need not flatter themselves, for the one certain way of bringing Socialism into this country is to keep them out of power. More Socialism has been obtained, and we have gone further on the path to Socialism, during the last five years than the Labour party would have achieved in 50 years. If hon. Members on these benches want Socialism to come, they ought to encourage the National Government to continue. I do not wish to detain the House too long on that point, but I want hon. Members opposite to realise what a stick they are giving hon. Members on this side to beat them with. I think a marvellous speech could be made concerning the way in which we have gone on in this House during the past four or five years.
Let it be remembered that the President of the Board of Trade said that this

is not the end as far as the reorganisation of the cotton industry is concerned. He said this is a mere stepping-stone on the way to prosperity, that it is not going to end here. The weaving section will come forward, so will the dyeing and finishing sections, and the sizing and doubling sections—all of them are to be allowed to come to Parliament with a scheme on which they have agreed. I submit that the President of the Board of Trade—and I hope I do him no injustice—has given them an invitation to come forward with schemes such as this. He said, "You agree among yourselves, come to the Board of Trade offices, and then I will take the scheme to the House of Commons and see that you get what you want." That is the new principle so far as the industrial structure is concerned.
Before concluding, I want to warn the House that we are going through a revolution. We are not doing it according to the methods employed in other countries where a dictator comes along and makes a great noise. We come to the House on Tuesday in one week and tackle one little thing, and give one particular benefit at that particular moment to one industry, and then the following Tuesday some other industry gets its particular little bit at that particular moment. Then hon. Members go into the Lobby, scratch their heads and say they cannot very well oppose this privilege because they voted for the same privilege last week. All the time we are going step by step towards one of two things, a complete corporate state through Fascism or through Socialism. I warn hon. Members what they are doing with Bills of this description. We started with the debate on this Bill on 3rd February and now it is the last day of March, and during the whole of that period, although I have attended the Committee fairly regularly, I have not heard a single word which has convinced me that I ought to change my opinion from what it was on 3rd February. I advise hon. Members on these benches to go into the Lobby against the Third Reading of the Bill.

8.54 p.m.

Mr. ASSHETON: I intervene in this Debate to-night party because I am a Lancashire man by birth and upbringing, and partly because I represent a


constituency in Nottinghamshire in which the textile industry is carried on. No one could possibly be more anxious than I am to do something or to see some steps taken which would benefit the textile trade. No one is more aware than I am of the great burden of anxiety and suffering which Lancashire has been carrying with such characteristic fortitude for many years. For all that, however, I am, to my great regret, a critic of this Bill because I feel that not only does it import certain highly dangerous principles, but I doubt very much whether in the long run it is likely either to be of benefit either to the workers or to the industrialists in the textile trade, or to their customers. We have been told by the Government that this Bill is no product of theirs, and that it was introduced by them in pursuance of a promise made to the cotton industry that they would do their best to implement any suggestions which the industry might put forward with sufficient unanimity to warrant their going further with the matter. It has been said that the Bill has the support of the majority of those in the industry and that on this account it should commend itself to the House, though I rather doubt if it has that large majority which the President of the Board of Trade told the House would be necessary if compulsory powers were to be given.
I would remind hon. Members that this Bill lacks the support of the cotton operatives, that it has the support of only 60 per cent. of the cotton spinners, and that it is opposed by a large minority of cotton spinners representing something like 11,000,000 spindles. I tried to point out on a previous occasion the dangers and difficulties which are involved in coercing minorities in industry at the instance of majorities. I pointed out that the adventurous spirits in industry are always in a minority, and that it is to those spirits that such progress as we have been able to make in the world has been due. I would remind the House that the redundance of spindles in Lancashire is partly due to the mistakes and errors of judgment on the part of the majority of those conducting the cotton spinning industry in the past. Their judgment was at fault in the past, and we should, therefore, be very careful before we accept the advice of these same people on this occasion.
The minority of cotton spinners who oppose this Bill are noteworthy for their quality if not for their quantity. There are among them many of the most successful though independent firms and seine who, in spite of all the difficulties, have succeeded in conducting their businesses successfully for many years, and also some who have even succeeded in paying dividends throughout the depression. It appears to me that the initiative in this Bill was taken by those who represented some of the less successful firms in the trade, supported certainly by the large combines and with the approval of banks and other creditors who are naturally not averse to seeing the security behind their loans made rather more secure. A large proportion of these firms has been kept on its feet by the banks, and I doubt whether the banks have not been doing a disservice to the community by this action.
The redundant spindles in the cotton industry are not the cause of its decline, nor is internal price-cutting the cause. These are symptoms of declining trade, and the criticism I would make of this Bill is that it is an attempt to cure symptoms and not to deal with causes. The causes of the depression of the Lancashire cotton trade are very well known—the closing of great markets and outlets for her trade and the foreign competition of Japan and other countries, whose costs of production are, on the whole, lower than ours. If a Bill could have been devised to reduce the costs of production, the situation might have been alleviated, but this Bill would appear to me to tend, if it does anything, to increase the costs of production rather than to reduce them. If the cost of purchasing redundant spindles is to be borne by a levy on the spindles that are left, and since many of the soundest mills are already running to full capacity, I fail to see how the added cost of the levy can do anything but add to the costs of production in those mills.
I was glad when, on the Second Reading of the Bill, the President of the Board of Trade decided to withdraw Clause 15 as it then was. Nevertheless, under the Bill as it stands new entrants into the industry are being penalised to a certain extent, and I cannot believe that the House really thinks it right to penalise newcomers in an area which is


as hard hit as Lancashire is to-day. I must confess that I feel grave anxiety, too, with regard to the question of employment in Lancashire. It seems to me that employment is likely to be reduced if active spindles are scrapped. If active spindles are not scrapped, this Bill will do very little good except possibly to some of those people who have the opportunity of selling spindles which are practically worthless for some sum of money. I have heard for many years now that the cotton industry of Lancashire is bleeding to death. I have lived in Lancashire all my life, and I have heard that said time and time again; and I have also heard it said that some desperate remedy is necessary to meet the situation.
I cannot believe that this Bill will meet the situation or that it provides a remedy. Nor do I think that we are justified in saying that the industry is bleeding to death. There is no doubt that the industry is bleeding, but that bleeding is the necessary purging of the grievous mistakes which have been made in the past, and this process of bleeding is necessary to restore the health of the industry. We must not forget that the very essence of our economic system is that those people who make mistakes should be allowed to go under, and that' those business men who make mistakes in judgment should pay for their mistakes, but in the case of an over-production or an excess of machinery such as there is here, there should be at least the consolation for the community, that they should be able to have the plenty which has arisen from these mistakes. Now it is proposed by the Bill to make other people share the cost of the mistakes, and to destroy valuable property because one day it might again be used at some time to serve the public.

Mr. RADFORD: Will the hon. Gentleman specify what the mistakes are?

Mr. ASSHETON: If I were to be drawn into a discussion of the mistakes that have been made in the cotton industry for the past 100 years, I should delay the House a great deal longer than I intend to do. I should have thought that by now we had had enough experience of restrictionism to be aware that it is not only cruel but ineffective.

There is no such thing as demand irrespective of price as long as any price exists there is an unsatisfied demand for the product. It is said that the Bill will co-relate the number of spindles to the present demand, but that means to the demand at the present price, because the word "demand" has not a finite meaning. If it is true to say that the cotton industry of this country is bleeding to death I would ask hon. Members, What, indeed, is being destroyed? If the Bill is not passed and we continue, as we have been going on for some years, with the slow and painful process of allowing the natural laws of supply and demand to operate, then at any rate we do achieve something, because we know that in the last five years 5,000,000 spindles have been eliminated.
If we go on without this Bill will as many spindles be destroyed as are going to be destroyed if the Bill is passed, will there be fewer men and women in employment, will there be a shortage, perhaps of cotton yarn, will the banks, perhaps, be put into such difficulties that there will be a financial crisis? No, none of those things will happen. But if the Bill is passed there will be a destruction of, perhaps, 10,000,000 spindles, some of which are now providing the livelihood of men and women in Lancashire; the inefficient will be given an advantage at the expense of the efficient; newcomers will certainly not be encouraged to come into the industry; and foreign manufacturers will, no doubt, benefit as they have done on previous occasions when our spindleage has, for other reasons, been reduced. If a new industry comes into being it will not come into being in this country, where it will be under a handicap, but in some foreign country where these handicaps are not imposed.
I cannot believe that the examples which we have had in this country and elsewhere of interference in trade are very encouraging. Does our experience of interference in the coal trade give us very great encouragement? Does the experience which President Roosevelt had in America give very much encouragement? He thought he could restrict the cotton crop, and what happened? The quantity of cotton grown in America was reduced and the cotton grown in Brazil was considerably increased. I am not an opponent of every sort of planning. I


believe in strategic planning, I believe in aesthetic planning, I believe in individual planning, but I do not believe in industrial planning by the State. In an interesting lecture which he gave last year Sir Josiah Stamp asked himself the question, "Can present motives work a planned society?" and he had reluctantly to admit that over the major part of the field the answer must be "No." I am quite sure that with human nature as it is now the freest possible markets must be the truest expression of the will of democracy, and I believe that restrictionism of any kind is anti-democratic, reactionary and unenlightened. Only in a really free market does the public get what it wants and not what some dictator wants to give it. Every interference in trade reduces the confidence of business men, and to my mind it is a lack of confidence more than anything else which has brought the world to its present unhappy state.

9.20 p.m.

Mr. BURKE: I have waited anxiously for someone to speak in support of this Bill. On the Committee we had to wait day after day for even the slightest bit of enthusiasm to be shown for the Measure. Even from the benches opposite to-day the most that has been said for the Bill is that "It cannot do very much harm." To a certain extent that is true, because it is limited to one section of the industry, and although the President of the Board of Trade has told us that this is a commencement may I say that if this were the right commencement that would be about the best thing he has said in connection with the Bill? The right hon. Gentleman has told us that free competition in the industry has failed. He has departed from the old Liberal doctrine. He has had to come to the rescue of the people who have been supporting the idea of free competition. But although he has thrown off the old love he has not taken on the new, and he is looking very miserable and disconsolate. He has not gone the whole way and insisted that all sections of the industry must co-operate.
Everybody knows that what is wrong with the Lancashire cotton industry, apart from what the Government have done by helping to destroy its markets, is the extreme sectionalism in the industry, and to deal with one small part of it in this way will not have any

beneficial results for the industry. What it will do is to increase the price of yarn to the consumer. The complaint all along the line has been that weak selling has made the spinning industry unremunerative. The chairman of the cotton mills trust said only a few weeks ago "If you could only add a farthing per pound to the price of yarn it would make the difference of £44,000 in our profits." It would be very easy to add a farthing on to the price of yarn. As a matter of fact, this levy of one penny and one-sixteenth will, as far as I can calculate it, add a considerable fraction of a penny to the price of yarn. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Yes. This levy is to be got from the industry and hon. Members cannot for a moment suppose that a mill with 100,000 spindles is going to pay out close upon 2500 a year for 15 years without getting some recompense. If the price of yarn is to be increased, how are we to deal with the fundamental problem of Lancashire, which is how to get more markets and improve its overseas trade. From that point of view the scheme, because of its sectionalism, is lopsided.
I am not one of those who would oppose a Measure that was likely to be beneficial to Lancashire simply because it came from the other side of the House. I agree that what has to be done, first of all, is to cut out a good deal of the dead wood, and the Government, if they had done that all the way round, might have been on the right lines. What do we find? The cotton spinning section of the industry located in one part of Lancashire; the cotton carted from there to another part of Lancashire; coming back again to another man in Manchester, standing outside his warehouse, and, without its being moved from even one lorry to another, taken away to Yet another part of Lancashire to be finished or to go through some other process; and then coming back to the merchant. At each stage there is a picking for someone, and something is added to the price.
This Measure will not do any real good to the industry as a whole, because there is not a board to co-ordinate all the activities of the industry. If the Spindles Board were to buy up redundant spindles and at the same time co-ordinate the various sections of the industry there might be something to be said for the Bill, but, as it is, I am rather


disposed to think that, instead of having a beneficial result, it will add very largely to the difficulties of the manufacturing side of the industry.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. RADFORD: The Third Reading of this Bill has been unique in my experience, so far as it has gone. We have heard a speech from the Opposition Front Bench, other speeches from the Socialist party and speeches from my hon. Friends on this side of the House, and they have all been against the Bill. It is time somebody got up who is wholeheartedly in favour of it. What is the alternative to this Measure? During recent years, the industry has been working under conditions of complete freedom to the private enterprise which the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) has been eulogising, and mills one after the other have been failing, not the least efficient ones but usually those whose finances were least strong. In some cases, comparatively inefficient mills with big purses at their disposal have been able to continue.
Upon the failure of mills, machinery and plant have, in many cases, been bought and shipped to the East, where they have been sold to run in competition against us. Under the provisions of the Bill that process is to be stopped. No machinery and plant bought by the Spindles Board can be shipped abroad. We are faced with a considerable redundancy of plant in the cotton spinning industry. Which is better: that it should be reduced by the orderly methods provided in the Bill so that the industry can bear some relation to the demand, or that the suicidal course should continue to be followed which we have witnessed during the last three or four years, in which units closed were not of necessity the least efficient but those with least long purses?
The hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Assheton) spoke lugubriously about the mistakes made by the industry. I would ask him to specify what those mistakes were. I hold very strongly that although mistakes have been made in the cotton trade, as in any other trade the present troubles of the industry are not its fault. The East has been awakening to industrialisation, and cotton has been the first industry that the East has adopted.

Obviously that was natural. The principal imports of some of those Eastern countries, for instance India, China and Japan—Japan was a good customer of ours at one time—have been cotton goods for their populations to wear. Awakening to the necessity of industrialisation, they have naturally turned to the making of essential goods which they hitherto have had to buy from England. The result is that whereas in this country we used to consume over 4,000,000 bales of cotton per year we consume only about 2,000,000 bales, while the consumption of the whole world has gone up slightly.
Hon. Members opposite never tired during the Committee stage of referring to what they call the camp of 1920–1921. They were a bit like the hon. Member for Rushcliffe in that they never specified what the nature of it was or what its effect had been. I took no part in that so-called ramp, and I neither lost by it nor gained, but I recollect that at that time the cotton trade was leaking ridiculous, fabulous profits. On these profits 80 per cent. Excess Profits Duty and Income Tax were being levied, and many of the companies were recapitalised by company promoters and other companies were formed with inflated capital. The people who invested then, and lost their money were not bamboozled into doing it; they had begged the people who had the allotting of the shares to give them allotments. I well remember it. I will tell hon. Members something which may give them satisfaction in regard to the Bill. So far from that ramp having made the Cotton Spinning Industry Bill necessary, it has, to a certain extent, rendered it less necessary than it would have been, for the reason that most of the concerns which were recapitalised and got landed with big loan capital and big overdrafts have gone down already, and the Bill is not necessary for dealing with their redundant plant.

Mr. ASSNETON: Is the hon. Member prepared to admit that there has been very considerable neglect of the proper provision for obsolesce ace and depreciation in Lancashire over a great many years, say during the last 50 years?

Mr. RADFORD: Not particularly in the cotton trade. Hon. Members in all parts of the House have been very upset about operatives being thrown out of work. It is certain that an industry should not be


conducted on uneconomic lines. If the Bill expedites the closing of certain mills it will concentrate production in the remaining mills, but so far as the spinning operatives are concerned, minders, spinners and piecers and others, not one penny piece less in the aggregate will go into their pockets than is the case to-day. A certain number of others, such as engineers and packers necessary to each individual mill, whether it is working at 60 per cent. or 90 per cent. of its productive capacity, will be thrown out of work.
The alternative to-day would be to continue as we have done, which means that people are thrown out of work in a more haphazard way. If hon. Members were right in their view with regard to the interests of the operatives they would argue that it would be better for the operatives that the silent mills should be brought into production and that the average output should be reduced from, say, 70 per cent. to 50 per cent. That would mean the absorption of a lot more operatives than are at work to-day, and if all the silent mills were brought into production now, only to work at 50 per cent. output, that would obviously absorb more operatives. That might please hon. Members opposite but it would mean the ruin of the whole trade, and would put the whole of the operatives out of work. You cannot separate the interests of the trade from the interests of those who work in it.
During this discussion on the Third Reading, the greatest injustice has been done to the cotton trade by the references to its being antiquated and inefficient. It is utterly unjust to make any such suggestion. Some hon. Members who are present are associated with the trade and know more about it than I do, but I can quote figures which will satisfy those who are not in the trade that that trade is not so inefficient as some of its critics make out. If the Lancashire spinning industry could receive 1d. per mile for its yarn, it would be in a state of abounding prosperity.

HON. MEMBERS: Do you mean an extra penny?

Mr. ROWSON: What weights per mile?

Mr. RADFORD: Take 105s. A lb. of that line yarn is over 50 miles long. The price to day per lb. is 24d. There

fore, for 24d, you can buy 50 miles of that yarn, and for ld. you can buy two miles. That cotton has been brought from Egypt, cleaned, treated and spun, and you can have a strand of that yarn stretching from here to St. Paul's, a distance of about two miles for a penny. In spite of the low wages and long hours of our Asiatic competitors they are only able to compete with the cotton spinning trade now by the help of tariffs. The charge of inefficiency is a grossly unfair one, and one that I feel it is incumbent upon me to reject. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Burke) referred to the Spindles Board also dealing with manufacturing, dyeing, bleaching, and finishing. What kind of a board can we get to deal with every possible branch of the trade at the outset? The Spindles Board will have its plate full in the duties imposed on it under this Bill, which I hope will soon pass its Third Reading and will achieve what many of us hope from it.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: How is the Bill going to assist in connection with the loss of the export trade?

Mr. RADFORD: I do not agree that the operation of the Bill will add to the cost of production. The reduction of the number of available spindles by roughly 20 per cent. will give a corresponding increase of the output in each of the remaining mills, and that will more than counterbalance the cost of the levy. That is not going to cost us anything. We cannot get back our lost Eastern trade by clearing away the redundant spindles, but we are making the punishment fit the crime by trying to make the available spindles fit the trade that is left to us.

9.29 p.m.

Mr. SILVERMAN: Let it be said at once that this is a. thoroughly bad Bill. It is no use coming to the House with apologetic support of the Third Reading, or apologetic opposition to it. The Bill is in the House because the Lancashire cotton industry, whether it be due to its inefficiency, to world causes, or to anything else, is now in a hopeless condition in which it was necessary for a majority of the industry to come to the Government and say, "Help us out of the mess we are in." When an industry in a capitalist State is in a condition in which it comes to the Government and says, "We cannot carry on, we need State assistance, we need the State to regulate


the industry for us, "it is absurd to advance arguments to show how well organised, well run and efficient that industry is. The only hypothesis that would justify interfering with the industry is that it is at the end of its tether and cannot carry on without State help. This is an industry which has been among the most prosperous in the country, and yet to-day it is possible for a substantial percentage of the workers employed in it to work a full 48-hour week and go home at the end with less than 20s.

Mr. RADFORD: That point has been made in Committee. In the case the hon. Member is referring to the employers are not the paymasters of these operatives. They pay the minder so many pounds a week and he pays the piecers.

Mr. SILVERMAN: I am obliged to the hon. Member for his lucid attempt to apply in a new form the old proverb about the grandmother and the eggs. I am not concerned with how the wages are payable or what form the industry has chosen to regulate the payment of wages. I am talking about the amount of money that goes to the workers for the 48-hour week that they have worked. A considerable percentage of them go home with less than 20s., and even among the best paid it is impossible to find more than 3 or 4 per cent. who are earning more than 40s. or 45s. per week. When an industry is in that condition and asks the State to help it, what does this Government do? It takes one small section of the industry and proposes to do something with that. It agrees that is not going to cure the disease from which the cotton industry suffers, that it is only a beginning, and that what it is doing, if it is a good thing, will have to be done in other sections in time, but the Government say: "We are dealing with a small section in this way because it is impossible to deal with the whole industry at once, and we arc compelled by the logic of the case to begin with one section." The inference is that nothing will be done for the rest of the industry until this experiment has run its course.
The Bill contemplates 14 years of this experiment. It is true there is a Clause which enables the Spindles Board to be wound up if the work that it was created

to do is completed within that period, but it is obvious that the Government do not contemplate that it can be completed much within that time. What is the Government's remedy? The House is being asked to take one small section as a necessary preliminary to dealing with the industry as a whole, and to say to the workers of Lancashire, "Give us 14 years to deal with that section, and if it is a successful experiment we will consider dealing with the rest of the industry later."

Mr. RADFORD: A small section?

Mr. SILVERMAN: I do not wish to bandy words with the hon. Member. Let it be admitted between us that it is only one section. We are to wait 14 years. Is it suggested that Lancashire can go on in that way—that, if nothing more than that is done, it is going to do anything whatever to save this industry and the workers in it from utter ruin? What is it that is going to be done during the 14 years? All the sections in the industry are to be compelled by law—and this is the only compulsion in the Bill—to pay a levy into a common fund which shall be used by the Spindles Board, to do what? To take out of the industry redundant spindles and scrap them. In other words, the first step that the Government are going to take in this preliminary experiment, which is to last 14 years, is to cut down the scope of the industry. I hear someone say, "No," and that has been argued before. It is argued in some sort of way that you are to take out of the industry spindles which are not obsolete—some of them are, but it has been said time after time, on the Second Reading and in Committee, that the operations were not to be confined to obsolete spindles, but that any spindles that were redundant could be bought and scrapped. It may be that the Government would argue that, if the experiment succeeded, that would provide conditions in which a future expansion of the industry would be possible, and I understand that to be their view, but it is impossible to deny that the effect of this first experiment, which is to last 14 years, would, if it is carried out at all, be a contraction of industry.
Let it be granted, for the sake of argument, that that is a good and valuable thing—that you must cut down the industry, that you must limit its scope, that


you must draw back in order to jump further at some future time. But there is not one word in the Measure to compel a single owner of a single spindle to sell it or sacrifice it in any way. There is in the Bill a compulsion on owners of spindles to pay a levy into a common pool, but, unless the owners of spindles are willing to come forward as willing sellers, bargain with the Spindles Board as a willing buyer, and settle the price for the spindles in that way, the Spindles Board has no power under this Measure to acquire one spindle. Does that mean that no spindles will be acquired? No, because there are people, not in the industry but parasitic on the industry, who are clamouring to be paid. When the hon. Gentleman opposite spoke about Members on this side talking about financial ramps, his memory betrayed him. It was not in connection with this Measure that Members on this side used the phrase "financial ramp." That description of financial operations in the cotton industry was advanced by the President of the Board of Trade in moving the Second Reading of this Measure here in the House. Let me remind him of what he said. I quote from his Second Reading speech:
The attempts made to cope with these problems carry us back to the War years and the years immediately after the War. The post-War boom and the capital reconstruction of many cotton spinning companies was one of the gravest scandals of our time.
It was not we who said that but the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. He went on:
I have already in the House drawn attention to some of the serious social results of what was throughout that period in many cases nothing but a financial ramp."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th February, 1936; col. 74, Vol. 308.]
Perhaps, if the hon. Gentleman opposite would not accept that on our authority, he will accept it on the authority of the right hon. Gentleman who is responsible for introducing the Measure.

Mr. RADFORD: I would not accept it from any quarter.

Mr. SILVERMAN: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled to his own view, but I think that we who hold different views on this point—even those of us who hold views different from one another on every other aspect of the Measure but

agree upon this—are entitled to say to him that, although he is entitled to his opinion, he is in a minority of one in holding it. I was dealing with the question whether spindles will be sold at all. What is going to be done with the money that will come to the Spindles Board? It was not we on this side who offered the criticism that the great majority of it would go to the banks; it was the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, in the same speech. I think it is right to quote the passage:
There is another aspect of these proposals which has aroused discussion in another quarter. It has been suggested, and indeed on one occasion within these precincts, whether these proposals were not drafted in the interests of the banks. Let us see what the provision is. I understand the banks are like other creditors, that they have made considerable advances to the cotton-spinning companies in the past"—
Does that mean in 1920 and 1921?—
and that a great many of them will never see their money back again. They are as much interested in the life of an active, enterprising cotton industry as anybody who is directly interested in the industry.
That, no doubt, is quite true. He went on to say:
They are creditors of these various concerns, and if, as one of the results of this Bill, the mills are put in a position where they can make repayments of advances or loans which they have received, I see no serious objection to that."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th February, 1936; col. 81, Vol. 308.]
In other words, the right hon. Gentleman admits that, if not the whole or the bulk of the money that goes into the pool as a result of the levy, at any rate a very considerable portion of it, will be paid to the banks. I have asked the right hon. Gentleman this question time after time, but never yet has an answer to it been vouchsafed. The question I ask is this: When the right hon. Gentleman talks about a financial ramp in the industry in the years following the War, and when he calls that financial ramp "one of the gravest scandals of our time," is he prepared on the Floor of this House or in any other place to acquit the banks of any share of responsibility for that grave scandal or for that ramp? I have asked him that question time after time. I will say this for him, that he has never yet attempted to acquit the banks of their share of the responsibility. Therefore, if it be true that, as has been said so often


in this House, among the people who influenced the vote on which this Measure is founded were people representing the hanks—anxious, as the right hon. Gentleman put it in the question I have just read, to get back some of the money which perhaps otherwise they might never see again—then I think we may assume that although there is not in the Bill any compulsion on anybody to sell any spindles at all, some spindles will nevertheless be sold. The spindles that will be sold will be those of the mills that are so involved with the banks that they cannot carry on at all, and the spindles in those mills are the only redundant spindles in the industry. That is where we are told the bulk of the money is to go.
One hon. Member suggested that this was a. Socialist Measure. He instanced once again the truth that people who use that kind of argument have never even paused to consider what the word Socialism means. Does any one on any side of the House believe for a single moment that a Socialist Measure applied to this or any other industry would concern itself solely with the financial and industrial and owning side of the industry and contain no single word about the workers at all? Some hon. Members opposite helped us in Committee on Amendments seeking to secure that, if workers were in any case displaced as the result of the operations of this Measure, they should get some kind of compensation. The argument was advanced that there was compensation for those who were sacrificing redundant spindles and it was equitable that, if there was redundant labour which had been cast out of the industry, it should be compensated too. There was a great deal of verbal acrobatics to show that the Bill did not provide compensation for any one. No one minds whether you call it compensation or not. Members are entitled to use language in the way that seems best to them. What the Bill provides is a method whereby people who can be induced to take out of the industry the spindles that they own have a method of being paid for them, and the sum that is paid for them is provided by a compulsory levy upon their competitors in the industry. If that is not compensation, I do not know what the word means. Whether you call it compensation, or

whatever you call it, the Amendment was resisted, and a much smaller Amendment was resisted that, if a man was about to lose his employment by the sacrifice of the tools of his trade, he should be sure of three months notice before he was cast on to the scrap heap. Even that Amendment was resisted and defeated.
Let it not be said by anyone, whether he supports or opposes the Measure, that our opposition to it is confined to the negative criticism that it is not likely to do much good. It goes far deeper than that. The Parliamentary Secretary on the Second Reading said that this was a new technique, and hinted that the new technique that was being applied in this Measure might be expected to be applied to other sections of the industry, and perhaps to other industries as occasion arose. It is, therefore, extremely important that we should examine the new technique. It consists, apparently, in confining your attention, when reconstructing an industry, to the owners of the industry and paying no attention whatever to the workers. It consists in creating inside the industry a board on which the workers are not represented at all, which has the right of limiting the whole scope of the industry, affecting for many years, perhaps for the rest of their lives, a large proportion of the workers, and it provides, too, a method which deprives the House of exercising effective control over anything that can be done. If that is all that we are to expect, we are fast slipping down the slippery slope that leads not to the Socialist but to the corporate State, and everyone in the House, Socialist or not, who objects to the creation of that kind of machinery should come with the Opposition into the Lobby and defeat the Bill.

9.50 p.m.

Mr. McCORQUODALE: The hon. Member will not expect me to answer his arguments again to-night, except in one word. He said this was a thoroughly bad Bill. He is, of course, entitled to his opinion and I am entitled to mine. I regard it as a thoroughly necessary Bill which means the commencement on the long road of reorganisation, which is the only hope of the cotton trade, but also a very real hope that we may once again get back to better times, better employ-


ment and, even more important, better wages. I do not believe there is anyone in the House who is satisfied with the wages that operatives in all sections of the trade are receiving.
I do not rise, however, to deal with the general aspects of the Bill but merely to draw attention to one feature on which I have been in correspondence with the President of the Board of Trade. I fully agree that the Bill is not the right vehicle for arranging for compensation for any displaced workpeople. Nevertheless, I think it is essential that it should have smooth and helpful co-operative working. If it does not get that, it is not going to be of much use to anyone. I should, therefore, like to see some gesture made somewhere to the workers. It is almost certain that the aggregate amount of employment and wages in the spinning industry will not be lessened. We all hope that it will increase. It is, nevertheless, certain that a certain number of operatives will, for a shorter or longer period, find their work interrupted by the operations of the Cotton Board. If we cannot provide any compensation, however small, for them it is obvious that they are going to feel a grievance against the Bill which may spread throughout the industry. I do not believe that the number of those people is going to be very large and, making a certain number of tentative calculations, I reckon that £30,000 or £40,000 will be sufficient probably to pay 10s. a week for three months to those people who may find their work interrupted.
Where are we going to find that sum? In, one of the first speeches that I heard from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in introducing a Budget, when he was looking for a certain sum of money, he said it was fortunate that he was in the position of the Biblical character who found a ram caught in a thicket. Looking round for a sum of money of that description, one comes on a fund which was instituted soon after the War—the Cotton Trust Fund. I am grateful to the President of the Board of Trade for the information which he has given me on this point, although I know he does not support me in every argument I am putting forward. That fund started, I believe, with about £2,500,009 and was administered by trustees. One of the specific objects of the fund was to compensate workpeople who lost their work.
The fund was carried on for a few years but when unemployment in Lancashire increased to such an extent, owing to the slump, the fund was rapidly depleted. When it had fallen to some £500,000 the trustees came to the conclusion that they must stop paying compensation otherwise the fund would disappear and there were other laudable objects in view including research schools.
I would appeal not to the Government, because this has nothing to do with the Government, but to the trustees of that fund. Here is an opportunity for them to use a small portion of the fund which is absolutely under their control in helping along what the majority of this House believe to be the start of better times for Lancashire. I believe if the trustees of that fund looked at the question in that light they would realise that they could not use the money better than by spending it on this cause. It may be said that it would be very difficult to pay out compensation—I do not like the word "compensation"—or any ex gratia payments to those who are thrown out of work by the operation of this Measure. I do not believe that to be so. I have made inquiries on this point and I believe the trade unions would be prepared to operate such a scheme on a fair and equitable basis.
I suggest that 10s. a week for three months, paid in addition to unemployment pay, would ease the change-over for any operatives who are displaced when this Measure is put into operation. I think it would remove the opposition of the cotton operatives to this Bill. I am not speaking of political opposition. We know that His Majesty's Opposition have a duty to perform in opposing the Measure in this House but opposition among the operatives in Yorkshire and Lancashire would, I believe, be removed if some such scheme could be put into operation. As I say it is not a question for His Majesty's Government or for His Majesty's Opposition or indeed for anybody in this House but for the trustees of the fund. If they were approached by the cotton trade, I do not see how they could refuse to help, and I believe it would be of material service in helping forward this Bill, which I regard as the one hope of the cotton trade.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I think it is the unanimous opinion of hon. Members of all parties that in passing the Third Reading of this Bill we are writing a new chapter in the economic history of our country. Whether for good or for ill, that chapter is being written in respect of the cotton textile industry of Lancashire. It remains to be seen what the ultimate result of its operations will be on the conditions of the people in that great county. The people of Lancashire have been looking for a long time for some help from the National Government. They are entitled to expect some aid because of the fact which is often forgotten, namely that Lancashire sends to this House more than one in 10 of its Members. There are 65 Members sitting here for the county of Lancashire, and, incidentally, I may mention that out of the present 20 Cabinet Ministers not one hails from Lancashire. I say that with some emphasis because it is felt in Lancashire that if the textile industry were centred in Birmingham and the surrounding areas its treatment would have been much more generous than that represented by this Bill.
This is a Measure which aims at scrapping redundant machinery, and it has been interesting to listen to hon. Members of all parties calling it by various names. I have seen Liberals become Tories while discussing this Measure. I have seen Tories trying to be Liberals, and I have witnessed both Liberals and Tories trying to be Socialists when discutting it. Whatever the Bill may do, it is at any rate attempting something new. But the hon. Member who described its provisions as resembling those of the Act which set up the London Transport Board was not, I think, right in his description. This Bill will leave private capitalism still supreme in Lancashire. Within their own area those capitalists will still compete for trade with one another. That is not the case in connection with London transport. But if this Bill is a violation of free trade and free competition in industry it is a remarkable circumstance in the political life of our country that the father of the Bill is a prominent Liberal. [HON. MEMBERS: "He was!"] Well, the right hon. Gentleman, as far as I know, has never disclaimed the fact that he is still a Free Trader. [HON. MEMBERS: "He never mentions it!"] I have been

here for a number of years and I have never heard the right hon. Gentleman say that he was not a Free Trader. All I ever heard him declare was that he was prepared to try tariffs just to see how they worked. It is very clever on the part of the Tories to employ an ardent Free Trader to experiment with tariffs. Stranger still is the fact that his deputy is also a Free Trader, and what is perhaps strangest of all is the fact that the gentleman who is leading the textile manufacturers of Lancashire in favour of the Bill was once a Liberal Member of this House. I begin to wonder, therefore, what all this is about. One thing is certain, the Bill aim at hits at clearing up the financial chaos in the Lancashire tetxile industry, and whatever our criticisms of it may be, we must admit that there are some serious financial problems connected with the Lancashire textile industry which require clearing up. In that respect the Bill may do some good.
We have only gained one concession despite all we have tried to do during the Committee stage of the Bill. We have secured a representative of the trade unions on the Advisory Board; the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the concession was a very remarkable one. I suppose we shall be told at the next General Election as the result of that small concession that the Government are the friends of the trade union movement. If this Bill is beginning a new era in industry, it is well that we should secure that one representative on behalf of the trade unions on the Advisory Committee. Of course, the Government know full well that it does not mean very much, otherwise they would not have given it to us. Anyway, we must be thankful for small mercies from this Government.
May I come now to what I think is a very real and serious criticism of this Measure? I think the right hon. Gentleman will be faced in due course with representations from Lancashire as to the difficulty of men, groups of men and firms, trying to establish new factories in the county. To impose a fine upon people who want to start a new mill or factory is indeed a very serious provision in an Act of Parliament, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that under Clause 5, when a firm establishes a new factory, it will be called upon to pay, if you please,


a fine for so doing. I am told by those who are able to calculate better than I can that it may be that if a firm builds a new factory and places 100,000 spindles in it, if they do it 10 years from now, it means a fine of £5,000 on them. The Parliamentary Secretary laughs.

Dr. BURGIN: No. The calculation is substantially accurate. It is £4,680, and, being within £320, it is quite reasonably accurate.

Mr. DAVIES: I will bring the hon. Gentleman a little bit nearer to the truth. If he had £4,680 for 10 years, he would increase it by proper investment more than £5,000 in that time. I have the honour to be responsible for half a. million of money for my approved society, and I know how much I have to make by way of investment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] It is quite common for Liberals and Tories in this House to imagine that a Labour man knows nothing at all about finance, but I want to show that on occasion we understand as much about finance and handle more money than some of the Tories opposite—[Laughter]—If hon. and right hon. Members enjoy that, I might as well add that we want to manage a little bit more, but, unlike them, we want to manage it on behalf of the community and not for private interests. With regard to an observation earlier in the Debate by the hon. and gallant Member for Accrington (Major Procter), I could never understand him when he congratulated the textile industry of Lancashire on the decent wages it paid. I think he said that.

Major PROCTER: The hon. Member is absolutely mistaken. The point that I made was that unless there is a controlled increase in price, it will be impossible to pay a decent rate of pay to the wage earner.

Mr. DAVIES: That is an admission hardly worth having, especially in view of the fact that it is common knowledge in Lancashire that public assistance committees are now asking whether they are entitled to subsidise the low wages of those who are actually in work. Indeed the wages paid in the textile industry of Lancashire are, on the average, the lowest paid in any industry in the land. If this Bill can do anything at

all to remove that state of affairs, I am sure we shall all be glad, irrespective of party.
When the two Labour Governments sat on the other side, I am under the impression that I remember hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who were in opposition then, that whenever we brought in a Bill or a Motion to touch any industry, they shouted, as if they were singing the Hallelujah chorus, "Hands off industry." Industry was sacrosanct, and we dared not touch it at any angle, either by a Factory Bill, by an Order in Council, or by anything else. "Keep your hands off industry" was their cry. And now, forsooth, a Bill is introduced, reaching its Third Reading that will so interfere in a certain industry in one county that it will buy out the inefficient. That is what it means in the end; it creates for those who remain a certain monopoly over which there is no control whatsoever in this Bill.
Finally, I do not know what this Bill will be able to achieve. Nobody can tell. The Government hopes it will do a great deal, and let me admit this much, that the people of Lancashire are so very poor in some parts of the county that they do not care very much what anybody thinks in this House about this Bill. They want better clothing, better food, and better housing, and for my part, if this Bill will achieve one-half of what the Government claim, I shall be thankful; but indeed the problem of poverty in Lancashire is so terrible and colossal that this Bill, in my view, will hardly touch the fringe of it.

10.12 p.m.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), who has just sat down, ended his speech by saying that what he wished to confer upon the people of Lancashire is better housing and better food. I wonder why he did not add "and better employment," for it is better employment which this Bill will bring to Lancashire if it succeeds at all. The Debate was opened by the right hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) asking me two questions, to which I will give him an immediate answer. He wanted to know what was to be the position of the Chairman of the Advisory Committee. The Chairman of the Advisory Committee will be selected


by the Committee themselves from one of their own number. They will be free to choose whoever they please to act as their Chairman, and he will work under standing orders of their own making. They will be perfectly free, therefore, to get full value out of their independent position. The second question was, "Will the Advisory Committee be free to give advice and not to wait until they are asked for it by the Spindles Board?" They will be free to offer advice if they have any to offer, and they will not be dependent on the invitation of the Spindles Board as to whether or not they offer any advice or give any assistance to the Board. On those two points I think the position is rather better than the right hon. Gentleman anticipated.
What is the problem with which we are faced to-night? What is wrong with Lancashire? It is not easily described. Lancashire is suffering from a variety of misfortunes, but above everything she is suffering from foreign competition, and it is the competition from Asia in particular which has brought to Lancashire the misfortunes from which she is suffering today. Low wages, long hours, the use of plant far in excess of anything that we have achieved here have enabled the Japanese and the Indian millowners to compete with our millowners in certain counts with certain success. Do not let us run away with the idea that all the cotton industry of Lancashire is suffering from misfortune. There are in some sections a considerable degree, I will not say of prosperity, but of efficiency, and that efficiency, I am very glad to think, has arisen not as the result of assistance given by the Government, but has come from the initiative, the ingenuity, the enterprise and the research of those who are in control of the industry itself.
We are too apt to accept the description of Lancashire which is given in the Press, and from our public platforms, as though poor Lancashire was really broken with no hope for the future. I do not believe that for a moment. I think that, given an even chance, Lancashire is quite capable of holding its own, and I look with great hope on the work which is being done in the research station at Shirley Institute which may, by one or two inventions or by some change in method or by some extension in know-

ledge which we do not at present possess, entirely re-establish the Lancashire cotton trade in the cotton trade of the world.
That is not what is anticipated in this Measure. We have no very high pretensions as to what it wishes to achieve. It carries out, however, one essential reform. It enables us, for the first time, in a Measure which has been carefully thought out and devised, to deal with the problem of redundancy. Very little has been said by speakers from the Labour benches on the subject of redundancy, and yet that is the whole essence of the Bill. It is to deal with the problem of redundancy. I do not know the present view of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Westhoughton, but when I turn to the Labour publication on Cotton, the Trade Union Congress plan, one of the most striking of the paragraphs in its early pages reads as follows
The existence of redundant machinery, particularly in spinning is one of the most pressing problems of the industry. Whereas the volume of trade available to Lancashire is probably less than half what was considered normal in the pre-war period, only a small percentage of plant has been destroyed since that time.
I go twelve pages further on and find the subject once more:
The existence of surplus productive capacity is partly responsible for the general depression of the industry in most countries. … Owing to the intense internal competition it has been found impossible to secure agreement upon measures which would improve the efficiency of the industry "—
In other words, the Trade Union Congress Committee failed to find any solution for the ills which they were describing:
and instead the uneconomic system of short-time working, with wasteful underemployment of plant and labour and wasteful production methods was long continued. The problems of surplus productive capacity, especially in the spinning section, and the relatively inefficient plant and methods of working, require urgent attention.
That is the very problem with which we were faced.

Mr. CLYNES: Will it be true to say that in that publication there is to be found the outlines of a scheme to deal with the industry as a whole, and that in no part of that publication is there any advocacy of a plan dealing solely with the spinning section of the industry?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I can only take the plan for what it is, and in its published form it does not provide for anything worked out in detail, such as is contained in this very Bill. [An HON. MEMBER: "Read the latter part of the book. It deals in the vaguest possible way with the whole scheme of socialisation, but the point I am making is that the one object of our Bill is to deal with the whole problem of redundancy. We have to meet that and solve it before we can proceed to any further elaboration. I have said not only in the House but in Committee that I believe we are laying the foundation here, and if the experiment succeeds—I admit that it is an experiment and nobody can prophesy as to what will be its ultimate effect—then we can proceed to deal with the other sections of the industry bit by bit. Certainly the idea of dealing with the whole of the cotton trade over its whole field never entered into the minds of any of the authors of this legislative scheme.
The criticism of the proposals in the House and in the course of very careful and close examination in Committee upstairs, has been over a comparatively narrow scope. In spite of that it seems to have aroused some of the deepest feelings on the part of certain hon. Members for Lancashire, certain Members of the Labour party and also some of those who usually support the Government. I heard with very great interest the speech of the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Assheton), who spoke on the subject of planning as a whole. His speech might have been delivered as a criticism of all kinds of planning. It was a plea for the doctrine and practice of laissez faire. As to the idea that we should get the fullest advantage out of the intelligence of Lancashire, he seemed to despair of any ability coming from that county. He said that for the last 50 years there had been nothing to show that Lancashire was composed of really intelligent industrialists. I am afraid that I cannot share with him that depressing thought.

Mr. ASSHETON: I must be allowed in defence of myself to say a few words. No one admires Lancashire more than I do. I have lived there all my life. I was criticising Lancashire's lack of attention to obsolescence for 50 years, and I did so in an interruption in answer to the hon. Member for Rusholme (Mr. Radford).

Mr. RUNCIMAN: That is not universally correct. I could name two or three firms which are the most up-to-date in the world and are making Lancashire preeminent in many fields, in many lands. Those are the people who have asked us to give them a chance of laying the foundations now, in this Measure, for improvements which will extend to other sections of the industry. I agree that the proposal is not entirely our own. I told the House quite frankly on the Second reading of the Bill how the scheme came into being. I made it clear then, and I repeat it now, that had it not come as a suggestion from the industry as a whole I should not have felt bold enough to have undertaken it myself. Neither my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary nor I have disguised the fact in any of our discussions either upstairs or elsewhere that we were adopting this Bill because it was the only Measure on which we had been able to secure agreement in Lancashire.

Mr. BENSON: Have you secured agreement?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Certainly. A great measure of agreement.

Mr. BENSON: A bare majority.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The highest figure that has ever been named in opposition to these proposals was that of 11,000,000 spindles out of 48,000,000. I call that a very considerable majority. If the hon. Member and his friends had a majority of those dimensions in this House how happy they would be.

Mr. BENSON: The right hon. Gentleman will admit that those who have signified definitely in favour of the Bill are only a bare majority. The 11,000,000 spindles are those who are definitely fighting an organised battle against the Bill.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The 11,000,000 spindles have never been exceeded in any estimate by the opponents of the Bill. At least 28,500,000 spindles are downright supporters of the Bill, without any qualifications whatever, and there has been a considerable addition to the number of those who are in favour of the proposals. Having accepted these proposals as being proposals which have gathered round them the largest degree of support, I think we did right in asking the House


to make this experiment. One further word. There is nothing whatever in these proposals which interferes with the object which I know my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe has so much at heart and which has been indicated from the Liberal benches, and that is that we should obtain the freest possible markets. They rightly regard free markets as being those in which they can most likely be successful. The freest possible markets are not to be obtained in the world today. We have to take the world as we find it, and we find that at the moment we are being excluded from the freest markets of the world. If we do not put our house in order and concentrate our forces it is quite certain that Lancashire cannot succeed in the future.

Major PROCTER: rose—

HON. MEMBERS: Divide !

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: The House has voted for the suspension of the 11 o'Clock Rule and, therefore, is it fair for hon. Members to try to howl down the hon. and gallant Member?

10.26 p.m.

Major PROCTER: I do not propose to detain the House for more than a few minutes, but as this is a Measure of great importance to Lancashire I feel it is my duty to say something in opposing the Third Reading of the Bill. I opposed it at the outset and at the last moment I am against it, because I believe it is absolutely wrong in principle. I am well aware that Lancashire has a very great friend in the President of the Board of Trade, and I readily admit that he is in a very strong position, because in reply to the numerous demands that something should be done for Lancashire he went to the cotton trade and said "Produce a scheme, and I will consider it." Therefore, he stands in a very strong position because he can now say "This is the scheme put forward by the trade and I, being desirous of helping Lancashire, put forward this Measure because it is the only one that has been put up for my consideration." Those people who are behind the Measure are the very people who have done more to produce this redundancy than any other set of people in the Lancashire cotton trade. I allude to the combines, who are the fathers of the proposals outlined in the Bill. It

was they who initiated and backed up the movement, it is they who represent a, great many spindles, and it is for the purpose of getting this section out of the mess that we have the proposals in this Measure.
I oppose the Bill because of the very underhand way in which the ballot was carried out. I oppose the Bill because the promises which were made when that ballot was carried out have never been fulfilled. I oppose the Bill because it helps the banks more than it helps the cotton trade. It helps the combines to get rid of their overdrafts without which it would have been impossible for them to stand up against the people who do not want this Measure. I oppose the Bill because it does not deal with foreign competition. Although we are to reduce our redundant spindles, there is no hope whatever that our foreign competitors will reduce theirs. Before this Measure was brought before the House the negotiating ability which is extra-ordinarily fine in the President of the Board of Trade ought to have been used in trying to get other yarn manufacturers to reduce their spindles in the same proportion that we reduce ours.
Furthermore, I claim that this Bill will not solve the redundancy problem. It is true that you may put spindles into cold storage, you may set up, as you intend to do for the first time, a Government Department which is going into the business of the sale, repair, and maintenance of secondhand machinery, but the Lancashire combines will be able to run carts and horses through this Bill so far as redundancy is concerned, because, while you may reduce the number of spindles by two-thirds, and where there are three spindles have only one, it will be possible to get the same production provided there are three shifts. Once the three-shift system is introduced into this country, there will be the same problem of redundancy to meet as before.
I oppose this Bill because it does not deal with the problem of redundant workers, and there the Government have missed another fine opportunity of proving that the friends of the working men of Lancashire are the National Government. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Rushholme (Mr. Radford) said that there is to be no unemployment, that work will be increased, that the factories will be run on full-time produc-


tion and that in the aggregate there mill be the same employment as before. Now there is a dilemma. This Bill will either put a great number of people out of work, or it will put only a few people out of work. If it puts a great many people out of work, it is a thoroughly bad Bill, and quite opposite to that which was promised by the National Government; if it puts a few people out of work, the National Government ought to be jealous enough to do what was done in similar circumstances in the London Passenger Transport Bill, namely, to compensate the people who are selling the most perishable commodity in the world, their labour. It is no satisfaction to say, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rushholme did, to a man in my division, "Well, never mind, you are hungry, but cheer up, for the men over in Rushholme have your job; it would have been all right if this Bill had not gone through, but these fellows are now working full time and you are not working at all." Arguments of that kind are very good for the mass, but they will not give very much satisfaction in the way of filling the empty stomachs of the men who will be put out of work in my division by this Bill.
Not a solitary concession has been made on the human side of this problem. Not a penny piece has been paid to compensate the worker for the loss of his job. I suggest, even at this late hour, that the President of the Board of Trade should give to the Spindles Board power in order that they may, out of some fund, at least pay for the removal expenses of the fellows who are displaced, because many of them are anchored to their homes. It that were done it would be a fine thing. I am opposed to the Bill because it imposes for the first time in a manufacturing industry, except licensing, a State monopoly. Some hon. Gentlemen on the other side do not know whether it is Fascism or Socialism. If this Bill fails it will be Fascism. If it succeeds it will be Socialism. It depends on how they use their propaganda. I believe the Bill is Fascism, but Fascism is just the beginning or the end of Socialism. If you begin with Fascism you end up with Socialism; if you begin with Socialism, whether individually or as a nation, you finish up with Fascism and the call for a dictator to get you out of the mess.
Under this Bill we are setting up a sort of hereditary Socialism, a hereditary cotton trade with the business going down from father to son, and no person ever being allowed to come into the industry unless he pays the whole of a fine in order to get established. It is because the Bill is creating a monopoly that I am opposed to it. Measures of this kind are just the beginning of Socialism. I do not know why hon. Members opposite oppose the Bill, because it is helping them to put the paralysing hand of the State on every industry in the country. We cannot foresee the end, and the time has come when we have to ask ourselves whether the National Government are on the right lines in making it possible for a law-compelling, bank-ridden, inefficient majority to impose its will upon a quiescent and very efficient minority. They have not been able to do it by fair commerce, and they can only do it with the help of the President of the Board of Trade.
This Bill is Socialism by degrees. As I am opposed to Socialism, I am opposed to the Bill which from the start is Socialism by a painless method. I am reminded of the man who had a dog, and seeing that its tail was rather redundant, decided to cut it off, but, in order not to hurt the dog, he decided to cut a little bit off every day. That is how Socialism is being introduced into this country by the National Government. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade said that what we want to do was to give Lancashire a fair chance. I am in agreement with that. If we do not have this Bill what else is there? May I suggest one or two things that the Government can do? I suggest that the President of the Board of Trade should use his bargaining power to force open lost markets. I ask him to increase the tariffs on Japanese imports into this country.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is going a long way beyond the Bill.

Major PROCTER: The right hon. Gentleman suggested that we should give Lancashire fair play. Lancashire deserves it, deserves far better treatment than is given by this Bill, and I hope that for the sake of displaced workers and for the sake of the future of the cotton trade the right hon. Gentleman will think


again and consider whether, instead of allowing this £2,000,000 to go to the banks, which have a stranglehold on the cotton trade, he cannot give it to the cotton trade to re-equip itself with the best machinery—and incidentally the best machinery is made in my division. In that way the money could be used to help and not to hinder. If we oppose this

Bill and throw it out, and get the Government to think out a better way of helping the cotton trade, I shall be very well satisfied for having detained the House so long.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 188; Noes, 124.

Division No. 129.]
AYES.
[10.42 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Fraser, Capt. Sir I.
Munro, P. M.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Furness, S. N.
Nall, Sir J.


Anderson Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Ganzoni, Sir J.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Gledhill, G.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Goldle, N. B.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Goodman, Col. A. W.
Patrick, C. M.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Graham Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Penny, Sir G.


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Pilkington, R.


Belt, Sir A. L.
Grimston, R. V.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Bernays, R. H.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'r'll, N.W.)
Porritt, R. W.


Blindell, Sir J.
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Radford, E. A.


Boulton, W. W.
Guy, J. C M.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Hannah, I. C.
Ramsbotham, H.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Bracken, B.
Harbord, A.
Rankin, R.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Harvey, G.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Rayner, Major R. H.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Hepworth, J.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Bull, B. B.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Holmes, J. S.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'nderry)


Butt, Sir A.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Cartland, J. R. H.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Rowlands, G.


Carver, Major W. H.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Cary, R. A.
Hulbert, N. J.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. W.


Castiereagh, Viscount
Hunter, T.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Joel, D. J. B.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Clarry, Sir R. G.
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Salmon, Sir I.


Colfox, Major W. P.
Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)


Colman, N. C. D.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk N.)
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Savery, Servington


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T, M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Kirkpatrick, W. M.
Scott, Lord William


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Selley, H. R.


Craddock, Sir R. H.
Leckle, J. A.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Levy, T.
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Cross, R. H.
Liddall, W. S.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Crossley, A. C
Lindsay, K. M.
Spens, W. P.


Culverwell, C. T.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C. C.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)
Lumley, Capt. L. R.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


De Chair, S. S.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Strickland Captain W. F.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
M'Connell, Sir J.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Denville, Alfred
McCorquodale, M. S.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Dodd, J. S.
Mac Donald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)
Sutcliffe, H.


Dugdale, Major T. L.
Mac Donald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Duncan, J. A. L.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Turton, R. H.


Eastwood, J. F.
Magnay, T.
Wallace, Captain Euan


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Warrender, Sir V.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Mander, G. le M.
Waterhouse Captain C.


Elliston, G. S.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Wells, S. R.


Elmley, Viscount
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Emery, J. F.
Markham, S. F.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Maxwell, S. A.
Wragg, H.


Entwistle, C. F.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Errington, E.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)



Erskine Hill, A. G.
Mitcheson, Sir G. G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Evans, D.O. (Cardigan)
Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert


Findlay, Sir E.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Ward and Commander Southby.




NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Adamson, W. M.
Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)


Adams, D. (Consett)
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Ammon, C. G
Banfield, J. W.




Barnes, A. J.
Hardie, G. D.
Oliver, G. H.


Barr, J.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Paling, W.


Batey, J.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Parkinson, J. A.


Bellenger, F.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Petherick, M.


Benson, G.
Holdsworth, H.
Pethick- Lawrence, F. W.


Broad, F. A.
Holland, A.
Potts, J.


Bromfield, W.
Hollins, A.
Pritt, D. N.


Brooke, W.
Hopkin, D.
Procter, Major H. A.


Buchanan, G.
Jagger, J.
Ritson, J.


Burke, W. A.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Cape, T.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Rowson, G.


Cassells, T.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Chater, D.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sexton, T. M.


Cluse, W. S.
Kelly, W. T.
Shinwell, E.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Short, A.


Cocks, F. S.
Kirby, B. V.
Silverman, S. S.


Compton, J.
Lathan, G.
Simpson, F. B.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Lawson, J. J.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Critchley, A.
Leach, W.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Daggar, G.
Lee, F.
Sorensen, R. W.


Dalton, H.
Leonard, W.
Stephen, C.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Leslie, J. R.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Logan, D. G.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Day, H.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Dobble, W.
McGhee, H. G.
Thurtle, E.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
McGovern, J.
Tinker, J. J.


Ede, J. C.
MacLaren, A.
Viant, S. P.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Maclean, N.
Watkins, F. C.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Watson, W. McL.


Fildes, Sir H.
Marklew, E.
Westwood, J.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Marshall, F.
Whiteley, W.


Gallacher, W.
Maxton, J.
Wilkinson, Ellen


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Messer, F.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Milner, Major J.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Moreing, A. C.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Grenfell, D. R.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Muff, G.



Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Naylor, T. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Charleton and Mr. Mathers.


Bill read the Third time, and passed.

GAS UNDERTAKINGS ACTS, 1920 TO 1934.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Sheffield Gas Company, which was presented on the 4th day of March and published, be approved."—[Dr. Burgin.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE REGULATIONS.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

10.53 p.m.

Mr. MANDER: I desire to call attention to the question of the delay in the publication of the new means test regulations. The delay is of great length and of a very extraordinary nature, and some

better explanation than has so far been obtained ought to be produced by the Government. This is a matter which affects the whole industrial population of this land, both employed and unemployed, and it played a foremost part in the General Election. Members of all parties were forced to give specific pledges that they would not stand for a continuance of the household means test at any rate in its present form, and as one who gave very specific pledges myself I feel it my duty to take any opportunity which presents itself on behalf of my constituents to urge immediate action on the part of the Government. When I say that many Members committed themselves during the General Election that includes Ministers, too, because when they were up against it and felt the pressure and indignation of those who come under the means test and were anxious to obtain their votes they felt that they must go as far as they dare. I will read only one extract. The Lord President of the Council, speaking at Seaham on 30th October, declared that if its administration were not reformed so that it would not damage the family unity of this country, he would resign from the Government.
The whole course of events during the last 14 months has been most discreditable; it is one of the most shocking things that has happened for many years past. In January of last year the regulations were brought forward. They were met with a storm of indignation all over the country, and the force of public opinion drove the Government to withdraw them in the utmost haste after a few days. We all expected that within a couple of months, at the most, fresh regulations would be brought forward, and I imagine that that was the intention of the Government at the time, but they were then facing a General Election within a measurable period, they realised the intense unpopularity of the regulations, and they were devoting the whole of their intellectual efforts during those months to finding some means of avoiding that being an issue at the General Election. I must say I never thought they could avoid it; I thought that things would go very badly with them on account of it; but suddenly there came to the help of the Government, most unexpectedly and most undeservedly, the issue of collective security and the League of Nations. As soon as they saw that they grasped it with both hands, they ran it for all it was worth, and they got in on the belief of this country that they could be relied upon to go "all out" for collective security. I must say that I believed they meant it at the time, but I do not think so now, because we very soon found, from the shocking episode of the Hoare-Laval proposals, that they could never really have meant to implement what they said at that time.
I think we are entitled to ask what has become of the Unemployment Assistance Board. What has it been doing, or what have the Government been doing to it? I cannot believe that a number of highly competent people have been sitting for the last 14 months without bringing their minds to this question, without presenting a report, or trying to present a report, to the Ministry of Labour. I think that for the sake of their dignity we ought to know why they have been placed in the humiliating position of being incapable of making up their minds or giving any advice to the Government. We were told, when the Measure was brought in, that they were entirely independent of the House of Commons, but

we learned in January of last year that they were entirely subservient to the House of Commons, and that pressure could be brought to bear upon them here to abandon any course they had taken up, and to propose almost any other course. I should like to know what has been going on between the Minister of Labour and the Unemployment Assistance Board during the last few months. I think we should have a statement from the right hon. Gentleman as to what reports have been sent in, or what requests have been made that reports might be sent in, because I can only imagine that he must have suggested to them that it would not be very convenient for the Government at the present moment to have a report, or to have it in the particular form which they contemplated. That matter needs clearing up, if only for the sake of the Unemployment Assistance Board; I am not so much interested in the credit of the Government. I submit that the time is long overdue when the household means test should be abolished. After all, all the other cuts have been restored—
It being Eleven of the Clock, the Motion for Adjournment lapsed, without Question, put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir G. Penny.]

Mr. MANDER: It is true that this was not a specific cut, like the 10 per cent., and no promise was actually made that it would be restored. The means test involved an infinitely greater cut to those who came under its hammer than 10 per cent. We have an ample revenue coming in and it is possible to spend hundreds of millions upon armaments, and it is only right that these people who have suffered so long and so cruelly should have matters righted for them. I feel that the only course that will deal with the problem effectively is to abolish the household means test. The personal means test is a very minor thing. It is the household test that is objected to so much all over the country. I hope the time is coming when some hope can be held out for these poor people. We have been told by the Minister that it is coming in the spring. The Prime Minister defined what comes within the ambit of the spring at Question Time to-day. I understand it does


not elapse until 21st June. I hope the Minister will be able to say something to these people who have been through the "winter of their discontent" and will be able to tell them that the springtime of deliverance is not far behind.

11.1 p.m.

Mr. E. SMITH: I want to associate myself with the hon. Member's protest. We should be lacking in our duty to the people we represent if we did not take every occasion that arose to protest against the means test. One could give scores of heartbreaking instances, which would not produce the levity and hilarity which this question produced earlier, if one had time. It is time the House was prepared to demand that the Government should withdraw the means test. We can see by the way the question has been received to-night that we have a volume of support from other sections of the House in our protest. Here are two or three illustrations that come to my mind. Men who went through the South African War and the Great War find that their pensions are being taken into consideration. They would be only too willing to accept employment if it could be offered them. They and their wives have made sacrifices in order to bring up their children. They look forward to their children helping them later on in life but they find that their children are having to keep them owing to the way the means test is being operated.
We find men threatening to commit suicide through being in this position, and a number of them have already done so. Children have left home rather than be a party to this kind of thing. We claim to be a country that tries to preserve family life. Yet we find in our industrial districts, unnecessary domestic friction being created because of this means test and families being broken up, and it is time the Government dealt with the question.

11.5 p.m.

Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: It is seldom that I address the House, although I interject a remark occasionally but I have followed this question of the means test since 18th December, 1934. I was in the House when the late Minister of Labour told us that the new legislation would mean an additional £3,000,000

for the unemployed on transitional payments. But he came back on 28th January and some of his supporters who had backed him up to the hilt on 18th December also came back in January with tears on their cheeks as big as snowballs. They rose up on every side stating that they have not understood the Unemployment Assistance Board scales. They had supported those scales without knowing anything about them. There were just a few of us left here who stated, across the Floor of the House, that we had told the House what the result would be. Some hon. Members will recall that we told the House then that in South Wales alone there would be a reduction in income of £25,000 a week. Then on 12th February the Minister withdrew the scales and we had what was called the "standstill order." In some parts of the country where the new scales operated better than the old scales they were allowed to proceed, but where they were operating worse than the old scales they were withdrawn and we were promised that in the immediate future completely new scales would be introduced.
I know that some hon. Members are anxious to hear the Minister, but I want to cite one or two cases to show the House what has been happening. I have here the pay-note of a man who lives in the same street as myself. He was employed part time and was on unemployment assistance, because he had exhausted his statutory benefit. He had gone for more than 156 days in one financial year and he was thrown on to the Unemployment Assistance Board scales. When he paid the three days in six which are necessary before a man can draw and he went to get the Unemployment Assistance Board's scale, instead of getting 14s. he got only 4s. 10d. because he had a son at home who was in work. The family means test had been applied to him.
In another case a man who had miners' nystagmus for nine years had his compensation taken away because the doctors stated that he was able to do light work. He applied for the Unemployment Assistance Board's scale and got 10s. 6d., but recently, because two of his lads in the pit had received advances of 1s. a day as from 1st January, the entire amount was taken away from him and he is getting nothing at the present time. He told one


of his lads, who is 27 years of age, "You had better leave the house and get a room and then possibly I will be able to get something." We want to know what the Minister is doing about this kind of thing. I made this statement on 18th December, 1934, that this legislation was the biggest home-breaker since Adam came out of the Garden of Eden.

11.10 p.m.

The Minister of LABOUR (Mr. Ernest Brown): The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, East (Mr. Mander) was not quite so accurate as usual in his history. The history of this problem is not a new one, but a very old one. It is not a problem that began on the 18th December, 1934, when the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) began to take an interest in it, but long before that. The test of need is no new thing in this country. It has been and is applied by local local authorities up and down the country to all those applying for public assistance who are in need. With regard to the test of need on a national scale, let us see how it arose. There has been an attempt for a number of years on the part of those who have advocated a change—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member will let me make my reply in my own way, I will try to leave him time. Those who demanded a change with regard to one section of public assistance, namely, public assistance for those who were able-bodied and in need, demanded three things. They demanded, first, that it should be done nationally; secondly, that it should be done uniformly; and thirdly, that it should be done without the interference of local busybodies. Those are the three demands that were put up by all advocates of change—and I use that term because it covers more than one party—over a number of years since the great depression struck able—bodied men in this country in terms of hundreds of thousands and, at its worst, of millions. It was an attempt to treat the assistance of the able-bodied unemployed on a national basis, on a uniform basis, and through a central organisation. That is the kernel of the problem, and it is the application of that to previous practice with regard to the treatment of able-bodied unemployed men that was the root of the trouble in the month of

January, 1934. What happened? There were scales drawn up. The hon. Member for Hemsworth said in his first sentence that the scales were withdrawn. That is not so.

Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: There was a standstill.

Mr. BROWN: I will try to state the thing clearly and fairly. The scales were never withdrawn. As a matter of fact, nearly half of those now under the care of the Unemployment Assistance Board are receiving the regulation scales. They have never been withdrawn, and the interesting thing about that is not the number of protests that have been received in the course of the last 12 months about them, but the comparative fewness of the protests that have been received.

Mr. MESSER: They are resigned.

Mr. BROWN: Whether they are resigned or not, that is the fact. Anyone who has had to analyse them locally or, as I have had to do, with regard to the whole of Britain, will know that the astonishing thing about that problem is not the number of protests that have, been received but their comparative fewness; and nearly half of those who are under the care of the Unemployment Assistance Board are not, as the hon. Member for Hemsworth suggested, on the standstill, except to this extent: Every man who is able bodied and applies to the board and gets relief, gets, when his determination is made and at the Labour Exchange before he draws his pay, a yellow form. That yellow form has on it two columns, and in those columns are two sets of figures: first, what the man is receiving under the original regulations and, second, what he would have received had he been receiving the transitional payment rate which was applied before the new order of things. If the transitional payment was deemed to be higher than he would have received under the regulations, he would receive the old rate. If not, he would get the regulation figure if that was higher than the transitional rate.

Mr. MARKLEW: No, he does not.

Mr. BROWN: The hon. Member may make a denial of that kind but that is the fact.

MAR Mr. MARKLEW: It is not true.

Mr. BROWN: The hon. Member must make his own statements in his own way and be responsible for them. I am responsible for telling the House what the facts are and those are the facts. Each one of those now under the Unemployment Assistance Board has this form, and it states in the clearest possible way, each time he receives it from the Employment Exchange, two figures—what would be the transitional rate and what would be the regulation rate. If the regulation rate is the higher, he receives the regulation rate, and if the transitional rate is higher than the regulation rate he receives the transitional rate. Nearly half those for whom the board now care are under the original regulations. They have not been withdrawn, and they operate under that Section. Where, then, does the trouble arise? It arises—and it is interesting to notice that hon. Members opposite are very keen to deal with this thing—over the application of a, universal scale nationally, over the centralised national attempt to deal with the able-bodied, the theory advocated over long months for the taking of the able-bodied unemployed out of the hands of the local authorities who had dealt with them before. The trouble was in certain directions.
It is easy to be wise after the event, but there were certain Members in the House who said certain things, and we will debate them when the time comes. No one realised how great had been the variation from town to town, from village to village and from public assistance authority to public assistance authority. It was found at once that when the Government came to the conclusion to have the standstill, in order to give the board and the Minister time to investigate the problem, the first thing that arose was that immense variation in previous practice in local authorities throughout the country. The application of uniform scales had caused unexpected cases to arise in the most unexpected areas. It was most remarkable that some of the biggest cases were not in the biggest and most populous areas, but in places like Fraserburgh in Aberdeen, which no one would have expected would be affected in that way.
The next thing was that it was found that the rent rule would not operate as

had been expected. There was a whole level of rents much lower than anyone had anticipated and much lower than the level of rents throughout the country. The super-cut on large families applied to families also having low rents, and under the terms of the earnings rule, which is now part of the regulation scale, they were found to have suffered more drastic reductions than were expected.
The Government introduced the original regulations in the full belief that they meant a scale and arrangement which would bring more humane treatment for the able-bodied unemployed. When I became Minister of Labour last June, I was confronted with all kinds of suggestions. It was my duty to associate myself with the board in order to investigate matters and see what the facts were, and what was the best way of getting a settled uniform system which would carry out the original intentions of the Government and the House. The Government have been very frank with the House and the country, for nothing could have been plainer than the terms of the election manifesto issued before the General Election, on which the Election was fought and decided. What were the terms of that manifesto? The preliminary conclusions which the Board, the Minister and the Government had arrived at were: (1) that the structure of the Act should be maintained; (2) that the authority of the Board would be upheld; (3) that steps would be taken in connection with the means test to do the utmost to avoid the break up of family life. The exact phrase was "to maintain the unity of family life." (4) The Government had come to the conclusion that something needed to be done about that matter; (5) that it should be done in a way to avoid hardship; (6) that the arrangements should be improved arrangements and, last, but most important, these things should be carried out in full association with local opinion. That meant, and the Election manifesto stated it quite plainly, that the Government had come to the conclusion, after preliminary investigation, that whatever was done to bring in a permanent system over the whole field would be done gradually and in full association with local opinion.
Nothing could have been plainer, more definite, or clearer. In order to allay


suspicion, the Government said that these arrangements would take place in the spring. It is now the spring, and I am happy to answer the hon. Member's question, as I have answered other hon. Members, and to say that the Government have been continuing their investigations absolutely on the lines of the pledges in the Election manifesto. [An HON. MEMBER: "While the people have been starving."] There has not been any row. The hon. Member opposite knows that some of his friends have been doing their best during the past nine months to stir up a big agitation on this matter, but they have utterly failed. The Government have taken the opportunity of making a very thorough investigation not merely in London but up and down the country, and they intend to keep the Election pledge, and to do it in the spring. The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), who raised the subject to-night, will not now, nor will the House, have long to wait before the Government will be able to tell the House fully when they intend to produce the precise regulations in the precise form.

11.25 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think anyone would wish to quarrel with the speech of the Minister of Labour. He has shown competence and assiduity in his office and we are sure that he has at heart the well-being of the great masses of people whose affairs are brought under his control. I am glad that the hon. Member has raised this matter at this early stage because there is great anxiety in the House as to when the regulations are to be produced. It is not satisfactory that they should be hung up day after day and week after week. I must say I was astonished at the statement of the Prime Minister to-day that the spring does not end until 21st June. No doubt that is true, according to the canons of the calendar, but nevertheless I am sure that everyone interested in this question will want to know the proposals of the Government long before 21st June. Spring is no doubt an exhilarating season, but the exhilaration is apt to wear off towards the latter end of the period. From the entrancing topic

of spring I must pass to the other note which has been struck, that of home. That is a matter which has influenced a great many people and I can assure my right hon. Friend that there is great anxiety in regard to it in all sides of the House. It is quite a delusion to suppose that a monopoly of interest on this point is to be found among hon. Members opposite. The Conservative party also represent millions of working men and large numbers of unemployed.
I would give the right hon. Gentleman a word of warning. "When we were introducing the legislation in regard to Old Age Pensions the whole trend of it—I had a lot to do with it—was to consolidate the home, and give the old man and old woman who sit by the ingle nook something to pay their way in the cottage home, something to give them the right to sit there and make it possible for their dependants and children to support them. It was a matter of weaving together the ties of the family. Now this household means test, which is so much considered at the present time and which has much to be said for it plausibly at first sight, is found to work a splitting function in regard to this home life, and to invite people in the same family, under the same roof, to ask, "What are you doing, what are you bringing in?" and to assess in an invidious and meticulous fashion each other's relative contribution to the maintenance of the family circle.
In that it is introducing an evil element entirely contrary to the trend of all social legislation, and I am bound to say that we look to the Government for, and expect from the Government, a solution of this problem which will free our national life from a feature which never has presented itself before as far as I can see. Therefore, I urge my right hon. Friend to present his regulations, for which the House are earnestly waiting, at the earliest possible moment. Until he does so, undoubtedly lie will be subjected, and ought to be subjected, to every form of legitimate and lawful parliamentary pressure.
It being Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to incorporate a body of Conservators for the regulation of Epsom Downs and Walton Downs and to confer powers on the owners of such Downs and on the Epsom and Ewell Urban District Council; and for other purposes." [Epsom and Walton Downs Regulation Bill [Lords.]

Also a Bill, intituled "An Act to confer further powers upon the Yorkshire Electric Power Company; and for other purposes." [Yorkshire Electric Power Bill [Lords.]

Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act for the removal of doubts as to the validity of certain policies issued by the Royal National Pension Fund for Nurses; to extend the objects of tae fund; and for other purposes." [Royal National Pension Fund for Nurses Bill [Lords.]

And also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers on the Gravesend and Milton Watersworks Company; and for other purposes." [Gravesend and Milton Waterworks Bill [Lords.]

EPSOM AND WALTON DOWN REGULATION BILL [Lords.]

YORKSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL [Lords.]

ROYAL NATIONAL PENSION FUND FOR NURSES BILL [Lords.]

GRAVESEND AND MILTON WATERWORKS BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

SELECTION (STANDING COM MITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Sir Henry Cautley reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Voluntary Hospitals (Paying Patients) Bill [Lords]): Sir Alan Anderson, The Attorney-General, Mr. Ralph Beaumont, Sir Reginald Clarry, Mr. Crossley, Mr. Arthur Duckworth, Mr. Gardner, Dr. Howitt, Captain Austin Hudson, Dr. Leech, Mr. Muff, Mr. Richards, Mr. Shakespeare, Mr. Storey, and Mr. Tinker.

Report to lie upon the Table.

SOLICITORS BILL [LORDS].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 83.]